What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4717290?

The tribunal order states: Owen Paul Koperu must pay Christchurch Real Estate Limited $6,260.57

How much money was awarded in case 4717290?

Cleaning: $848.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4636718 D…: $1,794.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $518.08 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,402.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717290?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9853780-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4717290?

The tribunal order states: Owen Paul Koperu must pay Christchurch Real Estate Limited $6,260.57

How much money was awarded in case 4717290?

Cleaning: $848.70 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4636718 D…: $1,794.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $518.08 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.26 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,402.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717290?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9853780-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Neill Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4717290 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

37 Neill Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4717290 — Property damage | 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 4717290 — net $6,260.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023	$1,794.73	Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023
Cleaning	$848.70	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$518.08	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$199.26	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$2,402.11	Rubbish removal
Oven replacement	$477.25	Oven replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,260.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,260.57

Claims and awards for application 4717290 — net $6,260.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023

Amount: $1,794.73
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023

Cleaning

Amount: $848.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $518.08
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Window repairs

Amount: $199.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $2,402.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Owen Paul Koperu must pay Christchurch Real Estate Limited $6,260.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 August 2023 under application 4636718.
The landlord’s claim for carpet replacement is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Lind and Mr Ryder attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Cleaning, Rubbish and Keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return the keys.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys. Damage
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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. In calculating depreciation, I consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
There was damage to window glass, the oven and carpet during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claims for window glass and the oven were proved by the production of photographs and invoices.
The landlord claims $3,640.90 being the cost of replacing the carpet.
I accept that the carpet was so badly stained during the tenancy that it needed to be replaced.
This tenancy started at the end of 2016 and so the tenancy was nearly seven years long. The carpet was likely to be at least that old. The carpet had some signs of wear, but it was not at the end of its life. In terms of betterment, I would have accepted a claim for half the cost of replacing it being $1,820.
The premises were insured with an excess of $650 for claims relating to tenant damage. It was not suggested that the damage was intentional and so the landlord is limited to the applicable excess (if there is cover) or four weeks rent whichever is less.
The damage is likely to be covered by the landlord’s insurance and an excess for each of the rooms affected would be applied because they would be treated as separate events. That is five excesses in this case making a total of $3,250.
Four weeks rent is $1,840. Therefore, the maximum that the landlord can recover is $1,820 being the cost of replacement after deducting betterment.
But the premises are on the market for sale. The landlord has painted the premises internally throughout, installed a new vanity and rewired the premises. Given the age and condition of the carpet, ignoring the staining, I find that it is likely that the landlord would have replaced the carpet in any case. It is unlikely that the landlord would present the premises for sale, freshly painted, with an older worn carpet. It follows that that I cannot award anything for carpet replacement because it is likely that it would have been replaced even if the carpet had not been damaged by staining. Previous Order
On 22 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have also awarded 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 4717290 — net $6,260.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023	$1,794.73	Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023
Cleaning	$848.70	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$518.08	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$199.26	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$2,402.11	Rubbish removal
Oven replacement	$477.25	Oven replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,260.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,260.57

Claims and awards for application 4717290 — net $6,260.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023

Amount: $1,794.73
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 4636718 dated 22 August 2023

Cleaning

Amount: $848.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $518.08
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Window repairs

Amount: $199.26
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $2,402.11
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Owen Paul Koperu must pay Christchurch Real Estate Limited $6,260.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 22 August 2023 under application 4636718.
The landlord’s claim for carpet replacement is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Lind and Mr Ryder attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Cleaning, Rubbish and Keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return the keys.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys. Damage
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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. In calculating depreciation, I consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
There was damage to window glass, the oven and carpet during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The claims for window glass and the oven were proved by the production of photographs and invoices.
The landlord claims $3,640.90 being the cost of replacing the carpet.
I accept that the carpet was so badly stained during the tenancy that it needed to be replaced.
This tenancy started at the end of 2016 and so the tenancy was nearly seven years long. The carpet was likely to be at least that old. The carpet had some signs of wear, but it was not at the end of its life. In terms of betterment, I would have accepted a claim for half the cost of replacing it being $1,820.
The premises were insured with an excess of $650 for claims relating to tenant damage. It was not suggested that the damage was intentional and so the landlord is limited to the applicable excess (if there is cover) or four weeks rent whichever is less.
The damage is likely to be covered by the landlord’s insurance and an excess for each of the rooms affected would be applied because they would be treated as separate events. That is five excesses in this case making a total of $3,250.
Four weeks rent is $1,840. Therefore, the maximum that the landlord can recover is $1,820 being the cost of replacement after deducting betterment.
But the premises are on the market for sale. The landlord has painted the premises internally throughout, installed a new vanity and rewired the premises. Given the age and condition of the carpet, ignoring the staining, I find that it is likely that the landlord would have replaced the carpet in any case. It is unlikely that the landlord would present the premises for sale, freshly painted, with an older worn carpet. It follows that that I cannot award anything for carpet replacement because it is likely that it would have been replaced even if the carpet had not been damaged by staining. Previous Order
On 22 August 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and the filing fee. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have also awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717290 — Property damage at 37 Neill Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717290 — Property damage at 37 Neill Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions