What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4698689?

The tribunal order states: Wendy Seleni must pay Noble Property Management Limited - As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4698689?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9944862-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4698689?

The tribunal order states: Wendy Seleni must pay Noble Property Management Limited - As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4698689?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9944862-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698689 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698689 — net $2,783.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,600.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Bedroom 3 and 3 - repairs to wall and painting	$750.00		Repairs: Bedroom 3 and 3 - repairs to wall and painting
Oven/stove cleaning: Replacement (depreciated	$520.00		Oven/stove cleaning: Replacement (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond		$107.00	Balance of bond
Total award	$2,890.44	$107.00
Net award	$2,783.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,783.44

Order

Wendy Seleni must pay Noble Property Management Limited - As Agent For Aven Raj $2,783.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has already been released by the tenant and applied against rent and water as previously agreed by the parties. A credit of $107.00 remains and that has been applied against the debt in this order.

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 remove all rubbish. The landlord sought $1600.00 compensation for the removal of all rubbish, including 18 tyres. In support of the claim a series of photos evidenced the extent of rubbish that required removal. Those photos support the cost and extent of the rubbish removal required and the full amount is awarded.
The amount ordered is 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 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. The excess for each event here was $750.00. Given that, and the actual awards for the repair of the walls in the two bedrooms, and the replacement of the oven, there was no benefit in pursuing insurance cover.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Repairs
A number of walls in bedrooms two and three had holes in them, or showed signs of previous attempts at repair. Bedroom two was wallpapered near the end of the tenancy by the tenant. No approval for such an exercise was sought or given by the landlord. Bedroom three showed wall damage but it had also been repainted with a green colour of the tenants choice. The landlord chose to make the repairs, remove the wallpaper, and repaint bedroom three. The claim for all of these activities totalled $1,300.00.
Bedroom two had wall covering that looked already dated at the commencement of this tenancy. I find the tenant liable for the cost of repairs but the subsequent repainting is something that was more than likely overdue and I make no allowance for the repainting of that bedroom, nor the removal of the wallpaper.
Bedroom three required repainting as well as attention to the attempted repairs that required finishing to a reasonable standard prior to any repainting. This bedroom had been repainted just before this tenancy and it was in very good condition as evidenced by ingoing photos.
As discussed at the hearing, given the length of this tenancy it is appropriate to consider depreciation for the walls finishing. Having reviewed the tasks completed and allowing for tenant liability, verses wear and tear and depreciation, I have determined an award of $750.00 is appropriate and should be awarded. Oven replacement
The tenancy commenced with an older oven that failed and was replaced. The exact date is uncertain but for the purposes of this hearing the replacement oven is considered to have been approximately four years old.
Twice during the tenancy an electrician was required to attend the oven as two elements failed. Those invoices record the opinion that the damage was being caused by over boiling on the stove top with liquid spillage seeping into the oven. The tenants paid the two invoices, but it appears damage to the oven continued and by the end of the tenancy the cost of repair was greater than installing a new oven. As best can be ascertained by the photographs and costs the replacement at the end of the tenancy was on a like for like basis. The IRD depreciation schedule estimates the economic useful life of an oven in a residential tenancy to be eight years. I have considered that but made some allowance for what appears to be accelerated depreciation due to the multiple spillage events over time. I have adopted a 10-year depreciation and assumed $700.00 of the $800.00 claimed as the replacement cost. The last $100.00 covers the cost for the disconnection and disposal of the damaged oven. Applying such depreciation means tenant liability is $420.00 plus the $100.00 for the other tasks. The final award is $520.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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. Application filing fee
Because Noble Property Management Limited - As Agent For Aven Raj has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698689 — net $2,783.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,600.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Bedroom 3 and 3 - repairs to wall and painting	$750.00		Repairs: Bedroom 3 and 3 - repairs to wall and painting
Oven/stove cleaning: Replacement (depreciated	$520.00		Oven/stove cleaning: Replacement (depreciated
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond		$107.00	Balance of bond
Total award	$2,890.44	$107.00
Net award	$2,783.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,783.44

Order

Wendy Seleni must pay Noble Property Management Limited - As Agent For Aven Raj $2,783.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has already been released by the tenant and applied against rent and water as previously agreed by the parties. A credit of $107.00 remains and that has been applied against the debt in this order.

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 remove all rubbish. The landlord sought $1600.00 compensation for the removal of all rubbish, including 18 tyres. In support of the claim a series of photos evidenced the extent of rubbish that required removal. Those photos support the cost and extent of the rubbish removal required and the full amount is awarded.
The amount ordered is 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 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. The excess for each event here was $750.00. Given that, and the actual awards for the repair of the walls in the two bedrooms, and the replacement of the oven, there was no benefit in pursuing insurance cover.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Repairs
A number of walls in bedrooms two and three had holes in them, or showed signs of previous attempts at repair. Bedroom two was wallpapered near the end of the tenancy by the tenant. No approval for such an exercise was sought or given by the landlord. Bedroom three showed wall damage but it had also been repainted with a green colour of the tenants choice. The landlord chose to make the repairs, remove the wallpaper, and repaint bedroom three. The claim for all of these activities totalled $1,300.00.
Bedroom two had wall covering that looked already dated at the commencement of this tenancy. I find the tenant liable for the cost of repairs but the subsequent repainting is something that was more than likely overdue and I make no allowance for the repainting of that bedroom, nor the removal of the wallpaper.
Bedroom three required repainting as well as attention to the attempted repairs that required finishing to a reasonable standard prior to any repainting. This bedroom had been repainted just before this tenancy and it was in very good condition as evidenced by ingoing photos.
As discussed at the hearing, given the length of this tenancy it is appropriate to consider depreciation for the walls finishing. Having reviewed the tasks completed and allowing for tenant liability, verses wear and tear and depreciation, I have determined an award of $750.00 is appropriate and should be awarded. Oven replacement
The tenancy commenced with an older oven that failed and was replaced. The exact date is uncertain but for the purposes of this hearing the replacement oven is considered to have been approximately four years old.
Twice during the tenancy an electrician was required to attend the oven as two elements failed. Those invoices record the opinion that the damage was being caused by over boiling on the stove top with liquid spillage seeping into the oven. The tenants paid the two invoices, but it appears damage to the oven continued and by the end of the tenancy the cost of repair was greater than installing a new oven. As best can be ascertained by the photographs and costs the replacement at the end of the tenancy was on a like for like basis. The IRD depreciation schedule estimates the economic useful life of an oven in a residential tenancy to be eight years. I have considered that but made some allowance for what appears to be accelerated depreciation due to the multiple spillage events over time. I have adopted a 10-year depreciation and assumed $700.00 of the $800.00 claimed as the replacement cost. The last $100.00 covers the cost for the disconnection and disposal of the damaged oven. Applying such depreciation means tenant liability is $420.00 plus the $100.00 for the other tasks. The final award is $520.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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. Application filing fee
Because Noble Property Management Limited - As Agent For Aven Raj has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698689 — Property damage at 13 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698689 — Property damage at 13 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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 the 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 the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions