How much money was awarded in case 4653753?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4618023 D…: $391.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $247.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $360.54 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Floor Coverings: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $305.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4653753?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4653753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9431134-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4653753?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4618023 D…: $391.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $247.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $360.54 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Floor Coverings: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $305.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4653753?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4653753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9431134-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

203 Bath Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4653753 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4653753?

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 4653753 — net $2,624.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4618023 dated 21/07/2023	$391.87	Previous order application 4618023 dated 21/07/2023
Lock/key replacement	$247.45	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$305.48	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$360.54	Window repairs
Repairs: drain unblocking	$299.00	Repairs: drain unblocking
Replace furnishings: floor coverings	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: floor coverings
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,624.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,624.78

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

Tahu Huatahi Eriha must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Toby Morland $2,624.78 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4618023 dated 21/07/2023 $391.87 Lock/key replacement$247.45 Rubbish removal$305.48 Window repairs$360.54 Repairs: drain unblocking$299.00 Replace furnishings: floor coverings$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,624.78 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,624.78

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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

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 provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence indicates that the tenant took what she wanted and then simply left without making any attempt to clean or dispose of her rubiish and unwanted items.

The tenant did not return the keys.

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: a. A ranch slider was broken. b. Flooding from the laundry had damaged the floor and the floor coverings in the laundry, hallway and kitchen. c. The toilet drain was blocked with items inappropriate items for disposal in a toilet.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I am satisfied that because of the disregard for the obvious and foreseeable consequences, the damage was intentional and not careless.

The landlord’s evidence is that the floor coverings were old but still had some residual utility value. Were it not for the tenant’s actions in flooding the floor and not notifying the landlord, the landlord would not have needed to replace them. It is appropriate to make an award of modest compensation to the landlord for the loss he has suffered.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Toby Morland has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4653753 — net $2,624.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4618023 dated 21/07/2023	$391.87	Previous order application 4618023 dated 21/07/2023
Lock/key replacement	$247.45	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$305.48	Rubbish removal
Window repairs	$360.54	Window repairs
Repairs: drain unblocking	$299.00	Repairs: drain unblocking
Replace furnishings: floor coverings	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: floor coverings
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,624.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,624.78

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Tahu Huatahi Eriha must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Toby Morland $2,624.78 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4618023 dated 21/07/2023 $391.87 Lock/key replacement$247.45 Rubbish removal$305.48 Window repairs$360.54 Repairs: drain unblocking$299.00 Replace furnishings: floor coverings$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,624.78 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,624.78

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence indicates that the tenant took what she wanted and then simply left without making any attempt to clean or dispose of her rubiish and unwanted items.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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: a. A ranch slider was broken. b. Flooding from the laundry had damaged the floor and the floor coverings in the laundry, hallway and kitchen. c. The toilet drain was blocked with items inappropriate items for disposal in a toilet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am satisfied that because of the disregard for the obvious and foreseeable consequences, the damage was intentional and not careless.
The landlord’s evidence is that the floor coverings were old but still had some residual utility value. Were it not for the tenant’s actions in flooding the floor and not notifying the landlord, the landlord would not have needed to replace them. It is appropriate to make an award of modest compensation to the landlord for the loss he has suffered.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Toby Morland has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4653753 — Property damage at 203 Bath Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4653753 — Property damage at 203 Bath Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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