What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4660889?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,275.00 (3369101-007) to Three Plus

How much money was awarded in case 4660889?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,242.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $104.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9766219-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4660889?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,275.00 (3369101-007) to Three Plus

How much money was awarded in case 4660889?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,242.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $104.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9766219-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1158B Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4660889 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660889 — net $92.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,242.00	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$104.89	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$92.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$92.33

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,275.00 (3369101-007) to Three Plus Three Limited immediately.
Te Manawanui Puke and Raukawa Manning must pay Three Plus Three Limited $92.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Enright appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 08 January 2020 and ended on 30 April 2023. The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy. On 31 October 2023 I adjourned and directed the landlord to provide an address for service or confirm that the email addresses to which notices of hearing had been sent were still active. The landlord has been unable to provide a physical address for service but has confirmed the email addresses provided are current. It appears that advice of the date and time of this hearing have been sent to those email addresses. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed. See section 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $45.00 for trailer hire, and dump fees of $59.89.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1) of the Act.
The landlord has provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. They show general rubbish has been left in both the general waste and the recycling bin. There are also items of rubbish left around the property and in a small shed. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove all rubbish. The amount claimed is reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to walls, doors, and windows.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful.
The landlord has provided a pre tenancy checklist and photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. There are holes in three walls, two doors, three holes in the wardrobe doors in the master bedroom, damage to the edge of the door in another bedroom, and damage to the security stays to a window in the laundry, which appears to have been forced open.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The invoice for repair includes replacing the door to the hot water cupboard. There is no evidence concerning the hot water cupboard door. I adjust the invoice accordingly, and award $1,242.00. I make no deduction for betterment.
There is a claim concerning a broken window in a ranchslider containing a cat door. The landlord states that they have email correspondence with the tenant in which they accept liability. Apart from an invoice there is no other evidence. This is insufficient to be satisfied that the tenant is liable, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Three Plus Three Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful and entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660889 — net $92.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,242.00	Repairs
Rubbish removal	$104.89	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$92.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$92.33

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,275.00 (3369101-007) to Three Plus Three Limited immediately.
Te Manawanui Puke and Raukawa Manning must pay Three Plus Three Limited $92.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Enright appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 08 January 2020 and ended on 30 April 2023. The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy. On 31 October 2023 I adjourned and directed the landlord to provide an address for service or confirm that the email addresses to which notices of hearing had been sent were still active. The landlord has been unable to provide a physical address for service but has confirmed the email addresses provided are current. It appears that advice of the date and time of this hearing have been sent to those email addresses. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed. See section 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $45.00 for trailer hire, and dump fees of $59.89.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1) of the Act.
The landlord has provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. They show general rubbish has been left in both the general waste and the recycling bin. There are also items of rubbish left around the property and in a small shed. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove all rubbish. The amount claimed is reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to walls, doors, and windows.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful.
The landlord has provided a pre tenancy checklist and photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. There are holes in three walls, two doors, three holes in the wardrobe doors in the master bedroom, damage to the edge of the door in another bedroom, and damage to the security stays to a window in the laundry, which appears to have been forced open.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The invoice for repair includes replacing the door to the hot water cupboard. There is no evidence concerning the hot water cupboard door. I adjust the invoice accordingly, and award $1,242.00. I make no deduction for betterment.
There is a claim concerning a broken window in a ranchslider containing a cat door. The landlord states that they have email correspondence with the tenant in which they accept liability. Apart from an invoice there is no other evidence. This is insufficient to be satisfied that the tenant is liable, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Three Plus Three Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful and entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660889 — Property damage at 1158B Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660889 — Property damage at 1158B Heaphy Terrace, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

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 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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions