What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4644977?

The tribunal order states: Makayla Jane Pare Kauae Murray must pay Christopher Richard Paul Downs

How much money was awarded in case 4644977?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Key Cut: $15.98 awarded to landlord; Key Cut: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $958.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644977?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10041525-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4644977?

The tribunal order states: Makayla Jane Pare Kauae Murray must pay Christopher Richard Paul Downs

How much money was awarded in case 4644977?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Key Cut: $15.98 awarded to landlord; Key Cut: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $958.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644977?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10041525-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Clearmont Crescent, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4644977 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644977 — net $1,154.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock replacement	$140.50	Lock replacement
Key cut	$15.98	Key cut
Key cut	$20.00	Key cut
Lawns and Garden work and rubbish removal	$958.00	Lawns and Garden work and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,154.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,154.92

Order

Makayla Jane Pare Kauae Murray must pay Christopher Richard Paul Downs and Alison Downs $1,154.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for the cleaning of carpets is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended with her support person. Mr Downs attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was terminated by an earlier order of the Tribunal.

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 landlord says the tenant did not return the keys. 6 keys are recorded as being provided in the ingoing property inspection.
The tenant says that she left the keys at the premises in a pot in the shed but had no probative evidence to support this. The landlord says he contacted the tenant about the keys and offered for the tenant to return to the property for the tenant to show him where the keys were. Evidence of this was provided in an email. The tenant did not return to locate the keys.
I find it more likely than not that the tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proven.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The outside of the premises was left very overgrown in the gardens at the front and rear and a significant amount of rubbish was scattered outside.
The landlord sought $1,094 for remedying this breach. This was supported by very detailed invoice for the work done. This sum includes the cost of lawn work, weeding, rubbish removal and disposal, equipment use and PPE. This sum is high but the rubbish was plentiful, scattered and also decaying and would have been unpleasant to deal with. The lawns and garden clearly had not been attended to for a considerable period of time. Therefore, subject to a deduction for water blasting (considered below) I consider the sum to be reasonable.
The above sum sought also includes an amount (2 hours of labour at $48 per hour and 2 hours of equipment at $20 per hour) for water blasting concrete after the rubbish was removed. Water blasting is generally a landlord responsibility. The landlord has not sufficiently satisfied me that the concrete required water blasting as a result of the rubbish.
I have therefore reduced the amount sought to account for the water blasting and have ordered compensation of $958.00.
The landlord seeks $350 to clean the carpets because he says the tenant had cats. The landlord says this was in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant says she did look after cats for a period of time for her sister. The tenant says she cleaned the carpets as best she could.
The landlord had no probative evidence of the state of the carpets at the end of the tenancy. His submission was simply that they ought to be cleaned because there were cats.
I must consider if the carpets were reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has produced insufficient evidence to satisfy me the carpets were not reasonably clean. Having a pet (whether in breach of the tenancy agreement or not) does not automatically mean a property, or parts of it, are not reasonably clean and tidy.
This part of the application is dismissed. Exemplary damages
As explained at the hearing exemplary damages are like a fine or punishment. They apply for specific breaches that have been identified by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as “unlawful acts”.
The landlord sought exemplary damages for a failure by the tenant to comply with an earlier Tribunal order and the failure to leave the outside of the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord also says that he wants exemplary damages for the fact there were cats at the property, in breach of the tenancy agreement, and that the tenant did not comply with a 14-day notice.
I note that these latter two claims are not included in the landlord’s application and I am not satisfied that the tenant had sufficient notice of them. I can only consider the claims as set out in the application which the tenant has had notice of.
In any event the landlord was unable to say with any further specificity how any of the breaches above give rise under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to an unlawful act.
I am not satisfied that any of the acts complained of by the landlord are unlawful acts thereby giving rise to a possible claim for exemplary damages.
This means that there are no grounds for me to award exemplary damages and therefore this part of the landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has partially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644977 — net $1,154.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock replacement	$140.50	Lock replacement
Key cut	$15.98	Key cut
Key cut	$20.00	Key cut
Lawns and Garden work and rubbish removal	$958.00	Lawns and Garden work and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,154.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,154.92

Order

Makayla Jane Pare Kauae Murray must pay Christopher Richard Paul Downs and Alison Downs $1,154.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for the cleaning of carpets is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended with her support person. Mr Downs attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was terminated by an earlier order of the Tribunal.

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 landlord says the tenant did not return the keys. 6 keys are recorded as being provided in the ingoing property inspection.
The tenant says that she left the keys at the premises in a pot in the shed but had no probative evidence to support this. The landlord says he contacted the tenant about the keys and offered for the tenant to return to the property for the tenant to show him where the keys were. Evidence of this was provided in an email. The tenant did not return to locate the keys.
I find it more likely than not that the tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proven.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The outside of the premises was left very overgrown in the gardens at the front and rear and a significant amount of rubbish was scattered outside.
The landlord sought $1,094 for remedying this breach. This was supported by very detailed invoice for the work done. This sum includes the cost of lawn work, weeding, rubbish removal and disposal, equipment use and PPE. This sum is high but the rubbish was plentiful, scattered and also decaying and would have been unpleasant to deal with. The lawns and garden clearly had not been attended to for a considerable period of time. Therefore, subject to a deduction for water blasting (considered below) I consider the sum to be reasonable.
The above sum sought also includes an amount (2 hours of labour at $48 per hour and 2 hours of equipment at $20 per hour) for water blasting concrete after the rubbish was removed. Water blasting is generally a landlord responsibility. The landlord has not sufficiently satisfied me that the concrete required water blasting as a result of the rubbish.
I have therefore reduced the amount sought to account for the water blasting and have ordered compensation of $958.00.
The landlord seeks $350 to clean the carpets because he says the tenant had cats. The landlord says this was in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant says she did look after cats for a period of time for her sister. The tenant says she cleaned the carpets as best she could.
The landlord had no probative evidence of the state of the carpets at the end of the tenancy. His submission was simply that they ought to be cleaned because there were cats.
I must consider if the carpets were reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has produced insufficient evidence to satisfy me the carpets were not reasonably clean. Having a pet (whether in breach of the tenancy agreement or not) does not automatically mean a property, or parts of it, are not reasonably clean and tidy.
This part of the application is dismissed. Exemplary damages
As explained at the hearing exemplary damages are like a fine or punishment. They apply for specific breaches that have been identified by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as “unlawful acts”.
The landlord sought exemplary damages for a failure by the tenant to comply with an earlier Tribunal order and the failure to leave the outside of the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord also says that he wants exemplary damages for the fact there were cats at the property, in breach of the tenancy agreement, and that the tenant did not comply with a 14-day notice.
I note that these latter two claims are not included in the landlord’s application and I am not satisfied that the tenant had sufficient notice of them. I can only consider the claims as set out in the application which the tenant has had notice of.
In any event the landlord was unable to say with any further specificity how any of the breaches above give rise under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to an unlawful act.
I am not satisfied that any of the acts complained of by the landlord are unlawful acts thereby giving rise to a possible claim for exemplary damages.
This means that there are no grounds for me to award exemplary damages and therefore this part of the landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has partially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644977 — Property damage at 38 Clearmont Crescent, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644977 — Property damage at 38 Clearmont Crescent, Blagdon, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions