How much money was awarded in case 4656810?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $655.91 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,004.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $223.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,384.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $217.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9508909-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4656810?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $655.91 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,004.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $223.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,384.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $217.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9508909-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Jackson Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656810 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4656810?

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 4656810 — net $3,045.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,384.29	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,080.00	Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: stove top	$655.91	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: stove top
Repairs	$1,004.10	Repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$217.75	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$223.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,045.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,045.49

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (6391738-001) to Williams Property Solutions Limited As Agent For Lau (Henrik) Lap Hang & Sam Sue Hui immediately.

Carrie Tantrum must pay Williams Property Solutions Limited As Agent For Lau (Henrik) Lap Hang & Sam Sue Hui $3,045.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,384.29 Carpet Cleaning$250.00 Cleaning$1,080.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: stove top$655.91 Repairs$1,004.10 Lawns and Garden work$90.00 Rubbish removal$217.75 Lock/key replacement$223.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,925.49 Bond$1,880.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,045.49

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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?

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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. It appeared as if the tenant had simply taken what she wanted and left everything else without making any attempt at leaving the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.

The tenant did not return the keys.

The landlord had to replace a smoke alarm.

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. The wall and the toilet roll holder were damaged twice, once at the start of the tenancy and again towards its end. This was careless damage. b. A cat flap installed by the tenant needed to be removed. The tenant had an obligation to restore the door at the end of the tenancy. c. Curtain fixtures were broken. This was careless damage. d. The bathroom mirror was removed from the wall. This was intentional damage. e. Window latches were removed. This was intentional damage. f. A bedroom wall had the plaster broken and some wallpaper was torn. This was careless damage. g. The bracket for the heat pump remote was broken. This was careless damage. h. The kitchen bench top had a gouge in it. This was careless damage. i. The stove top had been cracked and damaged. This was intentional damage.

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

I have considered betterment and depreciation in relation to the stove top. 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.

The landlord provided a quote for the repair of the stove top of $1,030.06. He opted to replace it instead at a cost of $655.91. This is a reasonable sum for compensation in the circumstances. Given the force required to damage two of the elements, I am satisfied that the damage was intentionally caused.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Williams Property Solutions Limited As Agent For Lau (Henrik) Lap Hang & Sam Sue Hui has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656810 — net $3,045.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,384.29	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$1,080.00	Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: stove top	$655.91	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: stove top
Repairs	$1,004.10	Repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$217.75	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$223.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,045.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,045.49

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (6391738-001) to Williams Property Solutions Limited As Agent For Lau (Henrik) Lap Hang & Sam Sue Hui immediately.
Carrie Tantrum must pay Williams Property Solutions Limited As Agent For Lau (Henrik) Lap Hang & Sam Sue Hui $3,045.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,384.29 Carpet Cleaning$250.00 Cleaning$1,080.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: stove top$655.91 Repairs$1,004.10 Lawns and Garden work$90.00 Rubbish removal$217.75 Lock/key replacement$223.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,925.49 Bond$1,880.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,045.49

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
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?

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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. It appeared as if the tenant had simply taken what she wanted and left everything else without making any attempt at leaving the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace a smoke alarm.
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. The wall and the toilet roll holder were damaged twice, once at the start of the tenancy and again towards its end. This was careless damage. b. A cat flap installed by the tenant needed to be removed. The tenant had an obligation to restore the door at the end of the tenancy. c. Curtain fixtures were broken. This was careless damage. d. The bathroom mirror was removed from the wall. This was intentional damage. e. Window latches were removed. This was intentional damage. f. A bedroom wall had the plaster broken and some wallpaper was torn. This was careless damage. g. The bracket for the heat pump remote was broken. This was careless damage. h. The kitchen bench top had a gouge in it. This was careless damage. i. The stove top had been cracked and damaged. This was intentional damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have considered betterment and depreciation in relation to the stove top. 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.
The landlord provided a quote for the repair of the stove top of $1,030.06. He opted to replace it instead at a cost of $655.91. This is a reasonable sum for compensation in the circumstances. Given the force required to damage two of the elements, I am satisfied that the damage was intentionally caused.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Williams Property Solutions Limited As Agent For Lau (Henrik) Lap Hang & Sam Sue Hui has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656810 — Property damage at 18 Jackson Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656810 — Property damage at 18 Jackson Avenue, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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