What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4683569?

The tribunal order states: Chantelle Van Wyk must pay Shayne & Nicole Hawtin As Trustees For Hawtin

How much money was awarded in case 4683569?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,869.00 awarded to landlord; Graffiti Painting: $127.38 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls And Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Sleepout Repainting: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4683569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4683569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9875113-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4683569?

The tribunal order states: Chantelle Van Wyk must pay Shayne & Nicole Hawtin As Trustees For Hawtin

How much money was awarded in case 4683569?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,869.00 awarded to landlord; Graffiti Painting: $127.38 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls And Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Sleepout Repainting: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4683569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4683569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9875113-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

406 Ruahine Street, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4683569 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

406 Ruahine Street, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4683569 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4683569 — net $6,916.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,869.00	Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: graffiti painting	$127.38	Repairs: graffiti painting
Repairs: holes in walls and painting	$1,000.00	Repairs: holes in walls and painting
Repairs: sleepout repainting	$900.00	Repairs: sleepout repainting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,916.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,916.82

Claims and awards for application 4683569 — net $6,916.82 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $3,869.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Replace furnishings: carpet

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: carpet

Repairs: graffiti painting

Amount: $127.38
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: graffiti painting

Repairs: holes in walls and painting

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: holes in walls and painting

Repairs: sleepout repainting

Amount: $900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: sleepout repainting

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

Chantelle Van Wyk must pay Shayne & Nicole Hawtin As Trustees For Hawtin Family Trust $6,916.82 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,869.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$1,000.00 Repairs: graffiti painting$127.38 Repairs: holes in walls and painting$1,000.00 Repairs: sleepout repainting$900.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$6,916.82 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,916.82

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord advised that they became aware that the tenant was vacating the property and tried to find out the tenant’s intentions. On the basis of email communication between the parties, I accept the landlord’s claim for rent to 30 September 2023 which includes a period for 28 days’ notice as required by section 51 (2B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing. From the sum claimed, I have deducted the bond of $2,800.00 which the landlord confirmed had been received.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
The tenant denied leaving rubbish behind at the property.
The landlord was unable to provide evidence of the rubbish left behind by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal must be dismissed.

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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Several holes were left in walls in a bedroom and the lounge where television brackets had been installed. b. The carpets throughout the property were ruined by extensive dog urine damage to both the carpet and the underlay so that they had to be replaced. c. There was a significant stain to the carpet in the sleepout that could not be removed. d. The walls in the sleepout were damaged by smoke or some other substance so that they were blackened. They could not be cleaned and required repainting. e. Curtains in the property were significantly damaged by mould and a lack of cleaning.
The tenant responsibly accepted that the holes in the walls were caused by her affixing and removing brackets for mounting televisions. The tenant has a responsibility to reinstate the walls to the condition they were in before the brackets were attached. See section 42(6) RTA.
It is appropriate to award the landlord a sum sufficient to professionally plaster the holes and paint the relevant walls. To award a sum for repainting all the walls of the bedroom and the lounge would involve the landlord having the property returned in a better condition than they were in at the start of the tenancy.
A sum of $500.00 per room, being $1,000.00 in total is sufficient to repair the holes and paint the affected walls and this sum is awarded.
It can be difficult for a landlord to prove damage to carpet by dog urine without a professional’s report. However, the landlord provided extensive photographic evidence of the damage caused to the carpets and its underlay. The landlord confirmed that their insurance claim for the damage had been successful and the carpets have been replaced.
The tenant acknowledged that she had cats at the property at the start of the tenancy and two small dogs during the rest of the tenancy. She acknowledged that they may have had a couple of “indiscretions” but claimed that they were house trained. She suggested, without supporting evidence, that the previous owner of the house had a dog and that it may have caused the issue.
The landlord denied the tenant’s suggestion that the damage was caused by the previous owner’s dog. The landlord gave evidence that there was no issue with smell emanating from the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I accept that the damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant’s dogs. The damage is intentional damage because the tenant allowed the actions of her dogs to continue when damage was inevitable.
However, the tenant is not liable for the full replacement cost of the carpets as the Tribunal must take into account betterment and depreciation.
The landlord could not provide evidence of the age of the carpets. From the photographic and video evidence they appeared to be worn but serviceable. They had a residual value because the landlord would not have had to replace them but for the damage caused by the tenant’s dogs.
It is appropriate to award the landlord $1,000.00 in compensation for that residual value.
The landlord’s photographic evidence of the walls and ceiling in the sleepout showed that it was significantly discoloured. They showed many circular undamaged sections which the landlord said had been covered by long playing records during the tenancy.
The landlord advised that they tried cleaning the walls without success and that their only option was to repaint the walls and ceiling. The landlord believed the discolouration was caused through cooking or a fire.
The tenant denied that the occupant of the sleepout cooked in there or had the ability to cook in there. The tenant believes that the discolouration was caused by mould. The tenant accepted that the occupant caused the stain in the carpet.
It is clear from the portions of undamaged wall where the records were installed that the damage occurred during the tenancy. If the damage was caused by mould, there would be no reason why it did not extend over the areas covered by records.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. It would have been obvious that the damage was occurring. The damage was therefore intentional.
I must 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. The landlord was unaware of when the sleepout was last painted.
The tenant should contribute to the repainting required and a sum of $900.00 or one third of the total bill of $2,702.50 is appropriate.
An award to the landlord has already been made for carpet replacement and so no further award for the staining is appropriate.
The landlord did not have photographs of the curtains at the start of the tenancy nor of the damage to them.
In the absence of such evidence, the landlord’s claim must be dismissed.
Because Shayne & Nicole Hawtin as Trustees for Hawtin Family Trust have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
It is appropriate that this Order records the landlord’s evidence that the tenant was a good tenant throughout the tenancy and that these issues only arose in the final months when the tenant encountered significant personal difficulties.
As discussed at the hearing, it is important that the tenant make and maintain contact with the landlord so that an achievable payment plan can be put in place.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4683569 — net $6,916.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,869.00	Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: graffiti painting	$127.38	Repairs: graffiti painting
Repairs: holes in walls and painting	$1,000.00	Repairs: holes in walls and painting
Repairs: sleepout repainting	$900.00	Repairs: sleepout repainting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,916.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,916.82

Claims and awards for application 4683569 — net $6,916.82 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $3,869.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Replace furnishings: carpet

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: carpet

Repairs: graffiti painting

Amount: $127.38
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: graffiti painting

Repairs: holes in walls and painting

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: holes in walls and painting

Repairs: sleepout repainting

Amount: $900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: sleepout repainting

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

Chantelle Van Wyk must pay Shayne & Nicole Hawtin As Trustees For Hawtin Family Trust $6,916.82 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,869.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$1,000.00 Repairs: graffiti painting$127.38 Repairs: holes in walls and painting$1,000.00 Repairs: sleepout repainting$900.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$6,916.82 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,916.82

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord advised that they became aware that the tenant was vacating the property and tried to find out the tenant’s intentions. On the basis of email communication between the parties, I accept the landlord’s claim for rent to 30 September 2023 which includes a period for 28 days’ notice as required by section 51 (2B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing. From the sum claimed, I have deducted the bond of $2,800.00 which the landlord confirmed had been received.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
The tenant denied leaving rubbish behind at the property.
The landlord was unable to provide evidence of the rubbish left behind by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal must be dismissed.

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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Several holes were left in walls in a bedroom and the lounge where television brackets had been installed. b. The carpets throughout the property were ruined by extensive dog urine damage to both the carpet and the underlay so that they had to be replaced. c. There was a significant stain to the carpet in the sleepout that could not be removed. d. The walls in the sleepout were damaged by smoke or some other substance so that they were blackened. They could not be cleaned and required repainting. e. Curtains in the property were significantly damaged by mould and a lack of cleaning.
The tenant responsibly accepted that the holes in the walls were caused by her affixing and removing brackets for mounting televisions. The tenant has a responsibility to reinstate the walls to the condition they were in before the brackets were attached. See section 42(6) RTA.
It is appropriate to award the landlord a sum sufficient to professionally plaster the holes and paint the relevant walls. To award a sum for repainting all the walls of the bedroom and the lounge would involve the landlord having the property returned in a better condition than they were in at the start of the tenancy.
A sum of $500.00 per room, being $1,000.00 in total is sufficient to repair the holes and paint the affected walls and this sum is awarded.
It can be difficult for a landlord to prove damage to carpet by dog urine without a professional’s report. However, the landlord provided extensive photographic evidence of the damage caused to the carpets and its underlay. The landlord confirmed that their insurance claim for the damage had been successful and the carpets have been replaced.
The tenant acknowledged that she had cats at the property at the start of the tenancy and two small dogs during the rest of the tenancy. She acknowledged that they may have had a couple of “indiscretions” but claimed that they were house trained. She suggested, without supporting evidence, that the previous owner of the house had a dog and that it may have caused the issue.
The landlord denied the tenant’s suggestion that the damage was caused by the previous owner’s dog. The landlord gave evidence that there was no issue with smell emanating from the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I accept that the damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant’s dogs. The damage is intentional damage because the tenant allowed the actions of her dogs to continue when damage was inevitable.
However, the tenant is not liable for the full replacement cost of the carpets as the Tribunal must take into account betterment and depreciation.
The landlord could not provide evidence of the age of the carpets. From the photographic and video evidence they appeared to be worn but serviceable. They had a residual value because the landlord would not have had to replace them but for the damage caused by the tenant’s dogs.
It is appropriate to award the landlord $1,000.00 in compensation for that residual value.
The landlord’s photographic evidence of the walls and ceiling in the sleepout showed that it was significantly discoloured. They showed many circular undamaged sections which the landlord said had been covered by long playing records during the tenancy.
The landlord advised that they tried cleaning the walls without success and that their only option was to repaint the walls and ceiling. The landlord believed the discolouration was caused through cooking or a fire.
The tenant denied that the occupant of the sleepout cooked in there or had the ability to cook in there. The tenant believes that the discolouration was caused by mould. The tenant accepted that the occupant caused the stain in the carpet.
It is clear from the portions of undamaged wall where the records were installed that the damage occurred during the tenancy. If the damage was caused by mould, there would be no reason why it did not extend over the areas covered by records.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. It would have been obvious that the damage was occurring. The damage was therefore intentional.
I must 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. The landlord was unaware of when the sleepout was last painted.
The tenant should contribute to the repainting required and a sum of $900.00 or one third of the total bill of $2,702.50 is appropriate.
An award to the landlord has already been made for carpet replacement and so no further award for the staining is appropriate.
The landlord did not have photographs of the curtains at the start of the tenancy nor of the damage to them.
In the absence of such evidence, the landlord’s claim must be dismissed.
Because Shayne & Nicole Hawtin as Trustees for Hawtin Family Trust have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
It is appropriate that this Order records the landlord’s evidence that the tenant was a good tenant throughout the tenancy and that these issues only arose in the final months when the tenant encountered significant personal difficulties.
As discussed at the hearing, it is important that the tenant make and maintain contact with the landlord so that an achievable payment plan can be put in place.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683569 — Rent arrears at 406 Ruahine Street, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683569 — Rent arrears at 406 Ruahine Street, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410

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