How much money was awarded in case 4668049?

Cleaning: $787.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump: $374.01 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors, Painting: $7,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668049?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9613516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4668049?

Cleaning: $787.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump: $374.01 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors, Painting: $7,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668049?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9613516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

365A Clyde Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4668049 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4668049?

The tribunal order states: Elise Mahinarangi Kakepare must pay Orbit Property Management Limited As

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4668049 — net $6,903.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$787.75	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: Garage Door	$201.25	Lock/key replacement: Garage Door
Repairs: Heat Pump	$374.01	Repairs: Heat Pump
Repairs: Walls, Doors, Painting	$7,000.00	Repairs: Walls, Doors, Painting
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee
Net award	$6,903.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,903.45

Elise Mahinarangi Kakepare must pay Orbit Property Management Limited As Agent For Harvey Wang & Brighty Zhang $6,903.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$787.75 Cleaning$600.00 Lock/key replacement: Garage Door$201.25 Repairs: Heat Pump$374.01 Repairs: Walls, Doors, Painting$7,000.00 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$8,983.45 Bond$2,080.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,903.45

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (5329147-006) to Orbit Property Management Limited as Agent for Harvey Wang & Brighty Zhang immediately.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The landlord has leave to submit an application for rent arrears.

Reasons

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

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

At the hearing, the landlord provided evidence in relation to rent arrears. There was no claim for rent arrears in the application. The tenant did not have notice that rent arrears were being claimed. If the landlord wishes to claim rent arrears it will have to submit a fresh application.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.

The landlord provided photographs and invoices, quotes & receipts for amounts claimed. 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 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 landlord provided evidence of extensive wall, door and paint damage and damage to sanitary fittings and the heat pump caused during the tenancy. The damage is consistent with impact damage and appears to be intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord provided itemised breakdowns by way of quotes and invoices for repairs. Not all of the quoted work was completed before the property was sold. The landlord provided receipts for work to the value of $17,312.16. The landlord claimed the difference between that amount and an insurance payment received of $5,494.01. That is, the landlord’s claim for damage and repairs was $11,818.15.

The invoices for repairs included items which were landlord maintenance obligations such as replacement door and window seals and new extractor fan to bathroom. The landlord did not establish that all painting was required as result of breaches by the tenant; some paint damage appeared to be normal wear and tear. Having regard to the damage caused during the tenancy, the invoices and insurance documentation I award $7,000 for repairs. I also award $374.01 for a heat pump repair that was invoiced separately. Smoke Alarms

The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.

A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord provided evidence of a smoke alarm in place near the start of the tenancy and an outgoing photograph which appears to show the smoke alarm missing.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.

The landlord has the evidential burden of establishing its claims. The evidence suggests that the tenant may have removed a smoke alarm during the tenancy but does not go far enough to persuade me that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate or required. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4668049 — net $6,903.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$787.75	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: Garage Door	$201.25	Lock/key replacement: Garage Door
Repairs: Heat Pump	$374.01	Repairs: Heat Pump
Repairs: Walls, Doors, Painting	$7,000.00	Repairs: Walls, Doors, Painting
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee
Net award	$6,903.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,903.45

Order

Elise Mahinarangi Kakepare must pay Orbit Property Management Limited As Agent For Harvey Wang & Brighty Zhang $6,903.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$787.75 Cleaning$600.00 Lock/key replacement: Garage Door$201.25 Repairs: Heat Pump$374.01 Repairs: Walls, Doors, Painting$7,000.00 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$8,983.45 Bond$2,080.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,903.45
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (5329147-006) to Orbit Property Management Limited as Agent for Harvey Wang & Brighty Zhang immediately.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The landlord has leave to submit an application for rent arrears.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord provided evidence in relation to rent arrears. There was no claim for rent arrears in the application. The tenant did not have notice that rent arrears were being claimed. If the landlord wishes to claim rent arrears it will have to submit a fresh application.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices, quotes & receipts for amounts claimed. 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 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 landlord provided evidence of extensive wall, door and paint damage and damage to sanitary fittings and the heat pump caused during the tenancy. The damage is consistent with impact damage and appears to be intentional. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided itemised breakdowns by way of quotes and invoices for repairs. Not all of the quoted work was completed before the property was sold. The landlord provided receipts for work to the value of $17,312.16. The landlord claimed the difference between that amount and an insurance payment received of $5,494.01. That is, the landlord’s claim for damage and repairs was $11,818.15.
The invoices for repairs included items which were landlord maintenance obligations such as replacement door and window seals and new extractor fan to bathroom. The landlord did not establish that all painting was required as result of breaches by the tenant; some paint damage appeared to be normal wear and tear. Having regard to the damage caused during the tenancy, the invoices and insurance documentation I award $7,000 for repairs. I also award $374.01 for a heat pump repair that was invoiced separately. Smoke Alarms
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided evidence of a smoke alarm in place near the start of the tenancy and an outgoing photograph which appears to show the smoke alarm missing.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
The landlord has the evidential burden of establishing its claims. The evidence suggests that the tenant may have removed a smoke alarm during the tenancy but does not go far enough to persuade me that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate or required. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668049 — Property damage at 365A Clyde Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668049 — Property damage at 365A Clyde Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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