What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4712230?

The tribunal order states: Kandice Tracey Speers to pay Donna-Marie Lind $660.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4712230?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Light Fittings: $89.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712230?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10102698-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4712230?

The tribunal order states: Kandice Tracey Speers to pay Donna-Marie Lind $660.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4712230?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Light Fittings: $89.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712230?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10102698-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Empire Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4712230 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4712230 — net $660.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$280.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Replace light fittings	$89.06	Repairs: Replace light fittings
Repairs: contribution to damage	$50.50	Repairs: contribution to damage
Clean up costs	$220.00	Clean up costs
Net award	$660.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$660.00

Order

Kandice Tracey Speers to pay Donna-Marie Lind $660.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $660.00 (5974705-001) to Donna-Marie Lind immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 (5974705-001) to Kandice Tracey Speers immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 14 October 2014 and ended on 18 November 2019. At the time of the commencement of the tenancy Ms Lind was known as Donna Freemantle but evidence has been produced recording Ms Lind’s change of name.
Mr Lind represented Mrs Lind at the hearing as she was unable to attend because of work commitments.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy ended when the landlord gave 90 days’ notice, due to plans to sell the premises. The tenant left 2 days before the tenancy ended, did not attend the final inspection nor make any contact regarding the bond. They have not been able to contact the tenant. Given the time that has expired since the end of the tenancy and the attempts to contact the tenant, I propose to dispense with service of the application under s.91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord and her husband undertook the clean-up themselves and I am prepared to award $220.00 in recognition of part of the time it did take them.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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 following damage is claimed to have been caused during the tenancy: •There were rips in the lining of a curtain. •There were rips in the wallpaper and the study, master bedroom and laundry required redecorating. •There was damage to a wall light that required replacement. •There was a crack in a window that required reglazing. Curtains
The landlord is claiming for replacement of some of the curtains. Two photographs were presented showing a rip in the lining of the curtain. The nature of the rip makes it appear that it might have caught on something causing the tear and could be regarded as careless damage.
In considering any award I must take 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. The expected life of curtains and interior decoration for depreciation purposes is 7 years. Mr Lind said the curtains and decorating was about 10 years old. As such the curtains have exceeded their expected life and no award will be made towards the cost of replacement. Wallpaper and paint
Mr Lind presented photographs of the wallpaper in various rooms. There were the odd tears and in one place a half wall strip had been removed. Overall, the condition of the wallpaper was poor. It was rolling away from the skirtings and window frames and was bubbling in many places. I don’t regard this as due to damage, but more related to the age of the paper. Again, taking into account depreciation the wallpaper had reached the end of its expected life, however I have awarded $50.50 towards to the costs of replacement acknowledging there were tears in the paper in some places. Window
A claim is being made for repairs to a broken window. It was not possible to see the crack from the photograph presented. Mr Lind confirmed there was a crack and I do accept that, but it is not possible for me to conclude without clearer evidence whether this was damage caused by the tenant or possibly due the age of the window frame which can often cause window cracks. On that basis I am not satisfied to the required level that this damage was caused by the tenant. No award is made.
Wall light A wall light was damaged and required replacement. The costs of the replacement light and the fitting of it by the electrician is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Donna-Marie Lind has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4712230 — net $660.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$280.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Replace light fittings	$89.06	Repairs: Replace light fittings
Repairs: contribution to damage	$50.50	Repairs: contribution to damage
Clean up costs	$220.00	Clean up costs
Net award	$660.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$660.00

Order

Kandice Tracey Speers to pay Donna-Marie Lind $660.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $660.00 (5974705-001) to Donna-Marie Lind immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 (5974705-001) to Kandice Tracey Speers immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 14 October 2014 and ended on 18 November 2019. At the time of the commencement of the tenancy Ms Lind was known as Donna Freemantle but evidence has been produced recording Ms Lind’s change of name.
Mr Lind represented Mrs Lind at the hearing as she was unable to attend because of work commitments.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy ended when the landlord gave 90 days’ notice, due to plans to sell the premises. The tenant left 2 days before the tenancy ended, did not attend the final inspection nor make any contact regarding the bond. They have not been able to contact the tenant. Given the time that has expired since the end of the tenancy and the attempts to contact the tenant, I propose to dispense with service of the application under s.91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord and her husband undertook the clean-up themselves and I am prepared to award $220.00 in recognition of part of the time it did take them.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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 following damage is claimed to have been caused during the tenancy: •There were rips in the lining of a curtain. •There were rips in the wallpaper and the study, master bedroom and laundry required redecorating. •There was damage to a wall light that required replacement. •There was a crack in a window that required reglazing. Curtains
The landlord is claiming for replacement of some of the curtains. Two photographs were presented showing a rip in the lining of the curtain. The nature of the rip makes it appear that it might have caught on something causing the tear and could be regarded as careless damage.
In considering any award I must take 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. The expected life of curtains and interior decoration for depreciation purposes is 7 years. Mr Lind said the curtains and decorating was about 10 years old. As such the curtains have exceeded their expected life and no award will be made towards the cost of replacement. Wallpaper and paint
Mr Lind presented photographs of the wallpaper in various rooms. There were the odd tears and in one place a half wall strip had been removed. Overall, the condition of the wallpaper was poor. It was rolling away from the skirtings and window frames and was bubbling in many places. I don’t regard this as due to damage, but more related to the age of the paper. Again, taking into account depreciation the wallpaper had reached the end of its expected life, however I have awarded $50.50 towards to the costs of replacement acknowledging there were tears in the paper in some places. Window
A claim is being made for repairs to a broken window. It was not possible to see the crack from the photograph presented. Mr Lind confirmed there was a crack and I do accept that, but it is not possible for me to conclude without clearer evidence whether this was damage caused by the tenant or possibly due the age of the window frame which can often cause window cracks. On that basis I am not satisfied to the required level that this damage was caused by the tenant. No award is made.
Wall light A wall light was damaged and required replacement. The costs of the replacement light and the fitting of it by the electrician is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Donna-Marie Lind has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712230 — Property damage at 6 Empire Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712230 — Property damage at 6 Empire Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930

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

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

Frequently asked questions