What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677493?

The tribunal order states: Shaqeul Storm Opetaia-Te Rore and Keti Sandra Fell must pay Lodge City

How much money was awarded in case 4677493?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Cutlery: $51.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kettle: $39.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $506.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,012.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $563.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $99.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $591.15 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677493?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603072-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677493?

The tribunal order states: Shaqeul Storm Opetaia-Te Rore and Keti Sandra Fell must pay Lodge City

How much money was awarded in case 4677493?

Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Cutlery: $51.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kettle: $39.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $506.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,012.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $563.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $99.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $591.15 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677493?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603072-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room C, Unit/Flat Unit 8, 34 Index Place, Manurewa, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677493 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677493 — net $1,692.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$414.00		Cleaning
Carpet repair	$506.00		Carpet repair
Blind repair cost	$57.50		Blind repair cost
Wall repair costs	$2,012.50		Wall repair costs
Cutlery	$51.50		Cutlery
Television replacement	$563.47		Television replacement
Bedside table replacement	$99.00		Bedside table replacement
Kettle	$39.00		Kettle
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$591.15	Rent credit
Total award	$3,763.41	$591.15
Net award	$1,692.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,692.26

Order

Shaqeul Storm Opetaia-Te Rore and Keti Sandra Fell must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited - As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd, the sum of $1,692.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenants claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an applications filed by both parties, although my impression is that the application from the tenant was a defence of the landlords claim, in particularly she seeks to limit any order to the amount of the insurance excess.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant and guarantor have been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Bentley Studios Limited by way of an agent, Lodge City Rentals Limited. The sole tenant is Shaqeul Storm Opetaia-Terore. There is also a guarantor, that is Keti Fell. The guarantee document confirms that the guarantee relates to rent, repair costs and damage, which I am satisfied would encompass the claims before the Tribunal.
The tenancy was terminated following an order from the Tribunal on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. I note that the tenant did not appear at that hearing either.
Following possession returning to the landlord, the landlord has incurred various costs which the landlord now seeks to recover by way of an order from the Tribunal.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

RENT CREDIT

The landlord holds a rent credit of $591.15. I direct that be used to offset the amounts ordered to be paid by the tenant and guarantor.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Based on the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is established and is ordered in full. The invoiced cleaning amount is $414.00, which is ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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. There is no limitation in the RTA for liability to the level of the insurance excess for intentional damage.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In this case the landlord has claimed $506.00 for a patch repair of a carpet stain. The stain is very noticeable, and any reasonable landlord would have it repaired. I am satisfied this stain occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven the stain was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This is ordered in full.
The landlord has claimed $57.50 for a blind repair. Again I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, and the tenant has not proven it was not careless or intentional damage.
The landlord has also claimed $2,012.50 for the repair of internal walls. The photographs show extensive damage including holes in the internal walls. Again I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, and the tenant has not shown it to be anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full.
I record for completeness that the damage above (certainly for the carpet and walls) would appear to be intentional damage based on the evidence before me. That means the tenant would be liable for the full amount of the damage, and the landlords claim would not be capped to the level of 4 weeks or rent or the insurance excess for that damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

MISSING CHATTLES

The RTA requires that at the end of the tenancy the tenant return all chattels provided by the landlord for the tenants use. In this case the landlord reports that the following chattels were missing, and the following amounts are claimed. a. Cutlery $51.50 b. Television $563.47 c. Bedside table $99.00 d. Kettle $39.00
I am satisfied these items were not returned to the landlord, so the replacement costs are ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677493 — net $1,692.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$414.00		Cleaning
Carpet repair	$506.00		Carpet repair
Blind repair cost	$57.50		Blind repair cost
Wall repair costs	$2,012.50		Wall repair costs
Cutlery	$51.50		Cutlery
Television replacement	$563.47		Television replacement
Bedside table replacement	$99.00		Bedside table replacement
Kettle	$39.00		Kettle
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$591.15	Rent credit
Total award	$3,763.41	$591.15
Net award	$1,692.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,692.26

Order

Shaqeul Storm Opetaia-Te Rore and Keti Sandra Fell must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited - As Agent For Bentley Studios Ltd, the sum of $1,692.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenants claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an applications filed by both parties, although my impression is that the application from the tenant was a defence of the landlords claim, in particularly she seeks to limit any order to the amount of the insurance excess.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant and guarantor have been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Bentley Studios Limited by way of an agent, Lodge City Rentals Limited. The sole tenant is Shaqeul Storm Opetaia-Terore. There is also a guarantor, that is Keti Fell. The guarantee document confirms that the guarantee relates to rent, repair costs and damage, which I am satisfied would encompass the claims before the Tribunal.
The tenancy was terminated following an order from the Tribunal on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. I note that the tenant did not appear at that hearing either.
Following possession returning to the landlord, the landlord has incurred various costs which the landlord now seeks to recover by way of an order from the Tribunal.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

RENT CREDIT

The landlord holds a rent credit of $591.15. I direct that be used to offset the amounts ordered to be paid by the tenant and guarantor.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Based on the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is established and is ordered in full. The invoiced cleaning amount is $414.00, which is ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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. There is no limitation in the RTA for liability to the level of the insurance excess for intentional damage.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In this case the landlord has claimed $506.00 for a patch repair of a carpet stain. The stain is very noticeable, and any reasonable landlord would have it repaired. I am satisfied this stain occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven the stain was anything other than careless or intentional damage. This is ordered in full.
The landlord has claimed $57.50 for a blind repair. Again I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, and the tenant has not proven it was not careless or intentional damage.
The landlord has also claimed $2,012.50 for the repair of internal walls. The photographs show extensive damage including holes in the internal walls. Again I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy, and the tenant has not shown it to be anything other than careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full.
I record for completeness that the damage above (certainly for the carpet and walls) would appear to be intentional damage based on the evidence before me. That means the tenant would be liable for the full amount of the damage, and the landlords claim would not be capped to the level of 4 weeks or rent or the insurance excess for that damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

MISSING CHATTLES

The RTA requires that at the end of the tenancy the tenant return all chattels provided by the landlord for the tenants use. In this case the landlord reports that the following chattels were missing, and the following amounts are claimed. a. Cutlery $51.50 b. Television $563.47 c. Bedside table $99.00 d. Kettle $39.00
I am satisfied these items were not returned to the landlord, so the replacement costs are ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677493 — Property damage at Room C, Unit/Flat Unit 8, 34 Index Place, Manurewa,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677493 — Property damage at Room C, Unit/Flat Unit 8, 34 Index Place, Manurewa,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT CREDIT

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

MISSING CHATTLES

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT CREDIT

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

MISSING CHATTLES

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions