What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675810?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application included Jeremy Ah-Kuoi as a tenant. The parties

How much money was awarded in case 4675810?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9609435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675810?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application included Jeremy Ah-Kuoi as a tenant. The parties

How much money was awarded in case 4675810?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9609435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Blue Jean Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675810 — Property damage

Order

The landlord’s application included Jeremy Ah-Kuoi as a tenant. The parties agree that Mr Ah-Kuoi is no longer a tenant, and his name is removed from this application by consent.
Shontelle Prasad must pay Tracey Dulieu $1,155.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6093319-012) to Tracey Dulieu immediately.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 August 2023. The landlord provided a water rates invoice, totalling $215.60, which proves the amount owing from 25 May 2023 to 27 September 2023.
At the hearing, the tenant accepted responsibility for the portion of water rates to 13 August 2023, being $138.60.

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 and return all keys and security devices under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects. The oven and fridge had to be cleaned at a cost of $120.00.
The tenant did not return a garage door remote control which had to be replaced at a cost of $88.00.
The amounts ordered are proved and were accepted by the tenant at the hearing.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
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) under 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) under section 49B(3)(b) 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 under 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the vinyl flooring in the kitchen ($260.00 plus gst), damage to a panel on the heat pump internal unit ($373.56 plus gst), and damage to kitchen handles ($25.00).
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepted liability for these amounts at the hearing.
The amounts are ordered by consent.
The parties agreed that damage was caused to the kitchen cook top during the tenancy. The tenant was asked to source and install a replacement for the cook top prior to the end of the tenancy. This would more usually be something a landlord would wish to attend to themselves, but in this case, the tenant arranged for the purchase and installation of a new cooktop (totalling $415.00).
The landlord has claimed the difference in value between this replacement cooktop (Novo) and the original (Bosch), being $732.00.
The amount claimed did not take into account depreciation of the original cook top but, in any case, the property has been sold since the tenancy ended and the landlord has not proven any loss consequential to a different cook top being in place when the sale took place.
I dismiss that part of the landlord’s claim relating to compensation for the difference in value of the cook tops.
The landlord has claimed $1050.00 for the replacement of three roller blinds. The tenant gave evidence that this damage was not raised by the landlord until at least three days after the tenancy ended. The parties agree that the blinds were not pulled down during the final inspection and I consider it reasonable that this damage was discovered by the landlord some days after then end of the tenancy when other work was being completed at the property.
The landlord provided photographs showing that the blinds were marked. Both the photographs provided and text communication between the landlord and tenant following discovery of the damage, suggest the damage was caused by a combination of incorrect cleaning products used at the end of the tenancy and children drawing on them. I consider this damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The blinds were approximately eight years old which the Tribunal considers the estimated life expectancy of blinds in a residential tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that the bottom rail had come off one blind through normal use, and this suggests that they were close to the end of their useful life. I have depreciated the cost of the replacement blinds by 17.5% per annum and award $225.33.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord has applied for $1250.00 compensation for an insurance excess in relation to replacement of the carpet in one bedroom.
The tenant gave evidence that all of the carpet in the premises had suffered fair wear and tear and that the landlord recarpeted throughout prior to selling the property. This may be the case, but the insurance excess in question only relates to this one room. The landlord has provided photographs and oral evidence to show that the damage here is more than fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal considers carpet can be expected to last between eight and 25 years. Applying reasonable depreciation to the quoted replacement cost ($2627.98) results in an amount greater than $1250.00 so the excess, being the lesser amount, is awarded.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord has claimed $1000.50 for repairs to nine chips in the kitchen bench. The photographs provided by the landlord indicate that some smaller chips may be no more than fair wear and tear, but the number of chips and the bigger areas of damage exceed what could reasonably be expected over a three-year tenancy.
The landlord has not sought replacement cost, only repairs, so I have not allowed for depreciation in this case. I reduce the amount to $800.00 to allow for some element of reasonable wear and tear.
The landlord’s application for compensation for the cost of a new pop-up waste was withdrawn at the hearing. Filing fee
As Tracey Dulieu has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675810 — Property damage at 14 Blue Jean Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675810 — Property damage at 14 Blue Jean Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?