What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4704270?

The tribunal order states: Sally-Anne Gowers and Caleb Pohoiwi must pay East Coast Realty Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4704270?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,125.71 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $48.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704270?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9666828-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4704270?

The tribunal order states: Sally-Anne Gowers and Caleb Pohoiwi must pay East Coast Realty Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4704270?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,125.71 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $48.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704270?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9666828-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 97 Derby Street, Gisborne, Gisborne 4010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4704270 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 97 Derby Street, Gisborne, Gisborne 4010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4704270 — 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 4704270 — net $4,105.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28.8.2023	$4,125.71	Rent arrears to 28.8.2023
Rubbish removal	$65.00	Rubbish removal
Replace smoke alarm	$48.85	Replace smoke alarm
Window repairs: broken window	$220.00	Window repairs: broken window
Cleaning	$225.00	Cleaning
Repairs: holes in walls	$700.00	Repairs: holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,105.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,105.00

Claims and awards for application 4704270 — net $4,105.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 28.8.2023

Amount: $4,125.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 28.8.2023

Rubbish removal

Amount: $65.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace smoke alarm

Amount: $48.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarm

Window repairs: broken window

Amount: $220.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: broken window

Cleaning

Amount: $225.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Sally-Anne Gowers and Caleb Pohoiwi must pay East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments $4,105.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5501454-020) to East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments immediately.
The Tribunal’s order dated 26 May 2023 in application #4558533 in incorporated into this order.

Reasons

Mr Third attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. One of the tenants, Ms Gowers, contacted the Tribunal about an hour before the hearing was due to start, to say she could not attend the hearing as she could not get time off work. Ms Gowers said in her email that she understood it was too late to reschedule, but asked she be notified of any orders made. She did not request an adjournment. Mr Pohoiwi, the other tenant, also did not attend the hearing. As both tenants had been served, and neither had requested an adjournment, the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 August 2023. The landlord provided a copy of a notice of eviction dated 28 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 28 August 2023, which is $4,125.71.
A previous Tribunal order in application #4558533 dated 26 May 2023 was made in relation to rent arrears in this tenancy. The rent arrears in the previous Tribunal order were not cleared before the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the Tribunal order dated 26 May 2023 in application #4558533 is incorporated into 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenants just left, without any notice to them, and they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, nor did they remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a Final Inspection Report dated 17 August 2023, with photographs of what was left at the property and its condition.
There were many photographs in the Final Inspection Report of items left by the tenants at the property. This included a lounge suite, table, stool, household items in the bathroom, many items in the kitchen cupboards, towels, bin and other things. The landlord claimed $65.00 to remove and dispose of these items, which I find is a reasonable cost given the evidence of what was left. Therefore, I award the landlord $65.00 for removing the tenants’ items.
The photographs in the Final Inspection Report showed areas that needed to be cleaned. The landlord said they cleaned dirty windowsills, cleaned where the tenants’ items were removed, cleaned a dirty toilet, grimy kitchen cupboards and kitchen shelving, cleaned the microwave, cleaned down the fridge and other areas at the property. The landlord claimed $300.00 for cleaning, which they said took 5 hours @ $60.00/hour. Whilst I find the time taken to be reasonable given the evidence of what had to be cleaned, I find the hourly rate claimed for cleaning to be excessive. An hourly rate of $45.00 for cleaning is more reasonable, in my view and so 5 hours @ $45.00/hour comes to $225.00. Therefore, I award the landlord $225.00 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said further that the tenant removed the smoke alarm, which had to be replaced at a cost of $48.85. The landlord provided a photograph of the missing smoke alarm at the end of the tenancy, as well as a photograph of the smoke alarm in place at the start of the tenancy. I find this to be a reasonable cost to replace the smoke alarm and so award the landlord $48.85 to replace the smoke alarm.
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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken window a. The landlord said a window in the lounge was broken and so the pane of glass had to be replaced in that window. They provided a photograph of the broken window, which was taped up. The landlord thought the tenant might have told them of this break and that the tenants would repair the window before they left but said this was not repaired. I find this likely to be careless damage on the part of the tenant, based on the evidence. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. The landlord has claimed for the cost of replacing a pane of glass in the window for $220.00. The owner provided an invoice on his own letterhead for $220.00. The landlord was unsure as to who had replaced the glass, whether the owner had paid a tradesperson to do this or not. However, no invoice was provided from a glass tradesperson. I note the owner has claimed GST on this repair but, as it is unclear as to who replaced the glass and it might have been the owner, I do not award any GST on this claim. Had the owner replaced this pane of glass, there would be no need for them to charge GST to themselves. Thus, I find the owner has not proved the GST has been charged to them and paid to them. Based on the photograph of the taped up broken window and that the glass had to be replaced in the window, I find $220.00 to be a reasonable cost to replace the pane of glass in the window. b. As the provisions of section 49B RTA apply, compensation would be limited to the insurance excess here, which is $500.00 as outlined in the Tenancy Agreement. As I have found $220.00 to be a reasonable cost to replace the glass in the broken window and this is less than the insurance excess, I award the landlord $220.00 to replace the glass in the broken window. Holes in the walls c. The landlord said the tenants caused holes in the walls and provided photographs of the condition of the walls in the bedroom. The landlord also provided an Ingoing Inspection Report dated 4 February 2022, from the start of the tenancy. It was noted that one of the holes in the bedroom claimed by the landlord had been present at the property at the start of the tenancy. With that noted, there were a further 3 holes in the bedroom walls that the landlord said had to be repaired with new gib and painted over. d. Given the photographs of these holes in the bedroom, I find them to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As this damage is intentional, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of plastering and repainting of the bedroom, and repainting the lounge, was claimed by the landlord to be $2,215.25 plus GST. e. The landlord acknowledged that they repainted the lounge wall, which they said had nicks and marks, to match the new paint put on in the bedroom to cover the repaired holes, and that the lounge repainting was included in their claim. I note from the Incoming Inspection Report that the lounge walls were noted to have nicks, marks and patches at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I find the landlord has not proved it more likely than not that these tenants caused any damage to the walls in the lounge that is more than fair wear and tear. f. I find a reasonable cost to be $150.00 to plaster each of the three holes in the bedroom walls, for a sub-total of $450.00 I find further that a reasonable cost to repaint the two walls in the bedroom that had holes to be $500.00, prior to consideration for depreciation. g. 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. h. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were last repainted about 5 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimate painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $500.00 cost I find reasonable to repaint the two walls and plastered holes, by 50% for depreciation to an award of $250.00 for the painting. i. Therefore, the combined award for replastering and painting the holes in the bedroom walls is $700, which I award to the landlord. j. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5501454-020) to East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments immediately. Filing fee
Because East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

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 4704270 — net $4,105.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28.8.2023	$4,125.71	Rent arrears to 28.8.2023
Rubbish removal	$65.00	Rubbish removal
Replace smoke alarm	$48.85	Replace smoke alarm
Window repairs: broken window	$220.00	Window repairs: broken window
Cleaning	$225.00	Cleaning
Repairs: holes in walls	$700.00	Repairs: holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,105.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,105.00

Claims and awards for application 4704270 — net $4,105.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 28.8.2023

Amount: $4,125.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 28.8.2023

Rubbish removal

Amount: $65.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace smoke alarm

Amount: $48.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarm

Window repairs: broken window

Amount: $220.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: broken window

Cleaning

Amount: $225.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Sally-Anne Gowers and Caleb Pohoiwi must pay East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments $4,105.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5501454-020) to East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments immediately.
The Tribunal’s order dated 26 May 2023 in application #4558533 in incorporated into this order.

Reasons

Mr Third attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. One of the tenants, Ms Gowers, contacted the Tribunal about an hour before the hearing was due to start, to say she could not attend the hearing as she could not get time off work. Ms Gowers said in her email that she understood it was too late to reschedule, but asked she be notified of any orders made. She did not request an adjournment. Mr Pohoiwi, the other tenant, also did not attend the hearing. As both tenants had been served, and neither had requested an adjournment, the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 August 2023. The landlord provided a copy of a notice of eviction dated 28 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 28 August 2023, which is $4,125.71.
A previous Tribunal order in application #4558533 dated 26 May 2023 was made in relation to rent arrears in this tenancy. The rent arrears in the previous Tribunal order were not cleared before the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the Tribunal order dated 26 May 2023 in application #4558533 is incorporated into 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenants just left, without any notice to them, and they did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, nor did they remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided a Final Inspection Report dated 17 August 2023, with photographs of what was left at the property and its condition.
There were many photographs in the Final Inspection Report of items left by the tenants at the property. This included a lounge suite, table, stool, household items in the bathroom, many items in the kitchen cupboards, towels, bin and other things. The landlord claimed $65.00 to remove and dispose of these items, which I find is a reasonable cost given the evidence of what was left. Therefore, I award the landlord $65.00 for removing the tenants’ items.
The photographs in the Final Inspection Report showed areas that needed to be cleaned. The landlord said they cleaned dirty windowsills, cleaned where the tenants’ items were removed, cleaned a dirty toilet, grimy kitchen cupboards and kitchen shelving, cleaned the microwave, cleaned down the fridge and other areas at the property. The landlord claimed $300.00 for cleaning, which they said took 5 hours @ $60.00/hour. Whilst I find the time taken to be reasonable given the evidence of what had to be cleaned, I find the hourly rate claimed for cleaning to be excessive. An hourly rate of $45.00 for cleaning is more reasonable, in my view and so 5 hours @ $45.00/hour comes to $225.00. Therefore, I award the landlord $225.00 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said further that the tenant removed the smoke alarm, which had to be replaced at a cost of $48.85. The landlord provided a photograph of the missing smoke alarm at the end of the tenancy, as well as a photograph of the smoke alarm in place at the start of the tenancy. I find this to be a reasonable cost to replace the smoke alarm and so award the landlord $48.85 to replace the smoke alarm.
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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken window a. The landlord said a window in the lounge was broken and so the pane of glass had to be replaced in that window. They provided a photograph of the broken window, which was taped up. The landlord thought the tenant might have told them of this break and that the tenants would repair the window before they left but said this was not repaired. I find this likely to be careless damage on the part of the tenant, based on the evidence. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap. The landlord has claimed for the cost of replacing a pane of glass in the window for $220.00. The owner provided an invoice on his own letterhead for $220.00. The landlord was unsure as to who had replaced the glass, whether the owner had paid a tradesperson to do this or not. However, no invoice was provided from a glass tradesperson. I note the owner has claimed GST on this repair but, as it is unclear as to who replaced the glass and it might have been the owner, I do not award any GST on this claim. Had the owner replaced this pane of glass, there would be no need for them to charge GST to themselves. Thus, I find the owner has not proved the GST has been charged to them and paid to them. Based on the photograph of the taped up broken window and that the glass had to be replaced in the window, I find $220.00 to be a reasonable cost to replace the pane of glass in the window. b. As the provisions of section 49B RTA apply, compensation would be limited to the insurance excess here, which is $500.00 as outlined in the Tenancy Agreement. As I have found $220.00 to be a reasonable cost to replace the glass in the broken window and this is less than the insurance excess, I award the landlord $220.00 to replace the glass in the broken window. Holes in the walls c. The landlord said the tenants caused holes in the walls and provided photographs of the condition of the walls in the bedroom. The landlord also provided an Ingoing Inspection Report dated 4 February 2022, from the start of the tenancy. It was noted that one of the holes in the bedroom claimed by the landlord had been present at the property at the start of the tenancy. With that noted, there were a further 3 holes in the bedroom walls that the landlord said had to be repaired with new gib and painted over. d. Given the photographs of these holes in the bedroom, I find them to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As this damage is intentional, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of plastering and repainting of the bedroom, and repainting the lounge, was claimed by the landlord to be $2,215.25 plus GST. e. The landlord acknowledged that they repainted the lounge wall, which they said had nicks and marks, to match the new paint put on in the bedroom to cover the repaired holes, and that the lounge repainting was included in their claim. I note from the Incoming Inspection Report that the lounge walls were noted to have nicks, marks and patches at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I find the landlord has not proved it more likely than not that these tenants caused any damage to the walls in the lounge that is more than fair wear and tear. f. I find a reasonable cost to be $150.00 to plaster each of the three holes in the bedroom walls, for a sub-total of $450.00 I find further that a reasonable cost to repaint the two walls in the bedroom that had holes to be $500.00, prior to consideration for depreciation. g. 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. h. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were last repainted about 5 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimate painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $500.00 cost I find reasonable to repaint the two walls and plastered holes, by 50% for depreciation to an award of $250.00 for the painting. i. Therefore, the combined award for replastering and painting the holes in the bedroom walls is $700, which I award to the landlord. j. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5501454-020) to East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments immediately. Filing fee
Because East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Jon And Christine Bain Wainui Developments has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704270 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 97 Derby Street, Gisborne, Gisborne 4010,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704270 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 97 Derby Street, Gisborne, Gisborne 4010,

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