What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734213?

The tribunal order states: Matthew Joseph Exeter must pay Max Property Management (MPM) Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 4734213?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,279.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $235.71 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $639.40 awarded to landlord; Sink Waste Plug: $14.91 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $444.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734213?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10030124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734213?

The tribunal order states: Matthew Joseph Exeter must pay Max Property Management (MPM) Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 4734213?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,279.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $235.71 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $639.40 awarded to landlord; Sink Waste Plug: $14.91 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $444.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734213?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10030124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 38 Aberdeen Street, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4734213 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734213 — net $2,155.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet damage (insurance excess	$400.00		Carpet damage (insurance excess
Sink waste plug	$14.91		Sink waste plug
Carpet cleaning	$220.00		Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal and miscellaneous repairs	$639.40		Rubbish removal and miscellaneous repairs
Repairs and painting	$1,279.38		Repairs and painting
Light and smoke alarms	$444.48		Light and smoke alarms
Kitchen bench damage (insurance excess	$400.00		Kitchen bench damage (insurance excess
Roller blind cleaning	$175.00		Roller blind cleaning
Cleaning	$480.00		Cleaning
Blind repairs	$517.50		Blind repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$235.71	Rent credit
Total award	$4,591.11	$235.71
Net award	$2,155.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,155.40

Matthew Joseph Exeter must pay Max Property Management (MPM) Limited as Agent for Caramel Investments $2,155.40 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6448204-006) to Max Property Management (MPM) Limited as Agent for Caramel Investments immediately.

Reasons

Ms Bayliss attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.

Shortly after the hearing began, the Tribunal received an email from the tenant stating that he was in custody, had no means to contact the Tribunal and therefore he was unable to attend the hearing.

There was no request for an adjournment, but I will assume that the tenant wanted an adjournment.

I did not adjourn the hearing. I proceeded to hear the landlord’s application and I have made a final order on the application. I did so for the following reasons.

At the previous hearing of this application, I made an order terminating the tenancy for anti-social behaviour and giving the landlord possession of the premises on 19 December 2023. At that time there were also claims for rent arrears and carpet damage.

I adjourned the landlord’s money claims and directed the landlord to file details of any other claims at least 7 days before the next hearing.

The landlord presented a list of 9 other claims today with supporting evidence. It seems that due to an administrative lapse in the landlord’s office, those documents were not sent to the Tribunal as required by the order. Therefore, the tenant has not received notice of them.

Ordinarily, that would result in either an adjournment or a dismissal of the claims that were not notified to the tenant. But there are reasons in this case for proceeding to hear the claims.

At the last hearing it was apparent that, for whatever reason, the tenant had limited recollection of the anti-social behaviour that went on at the premises. There had been a general downturn in the way that the tenant was treating the premises.

Ms Bayliss told me that the tenant left the premises before the possession date and went into Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch. It seems that he was suffering some mental health problems which is consistent with the decline in his behaviour in respect of the tenancy.

It is therefore uncertain when or if the tenant will be able to engage with this application. In the meantime, the landlord has incurred significant costs and the bond is sitting with the Bond Centre. It also follows that even if the tenant had received notice of the claims, he would not have attended today.

After considering the landlord’s claims and the evidence in support of them, it is obvious that there was significant damage to the premises during the tenancy, the landlord’s claims were very well supported by evidence and the landlord had gone above and beyond in terms of keeping the costs claimed against the tenant to a reasonable level. Indeed, I am satisfied that there were other costs that the landlord could have claimed and recovered which they have borne themselves.

For these reasons, and in the parties’ shared interests of concluding this application, I have made this final order. Rent

The rent was in credit in the sum of $235.71 when the tenancy ended on 19 December and that credit has been set off against the landlord’s claims. Law

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.

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).

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. Claims

The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and the tenant had not removed all rubbish from the premises.

The tenant’s family and his flat mate helped remove some of the tenant’s belongings, but there was a substantial amount left that the landlord had to remove.

A waste plug and three smoke alarms were missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy.

There was damage to carpet in the bedrooms which had to be replaced due to staining, there was damage to walls and joinery, a light was damaged, the kitchen bench was damaged, possibly by some sort of caustic material, and blinds were damaged.

The damage was beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Some of the damage appears to have been caused intentionally.

The damage to the carpet and the kitchen bench was covered by the landlord’s insurance and so the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excesses. The repair and painting of the walls and joinery was the result of numerous different events and the cost of each event was below the excess.

The amounts ordered were proved by the production of photographs and invoices. Filing Fee

The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734213 — net $2,155.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet damage (insurance excess	$400.00		Carpet damage (insurance excess
Sink waste plug	$14.91		Sink waste plug
Carpet cleaning	$220.00		Carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal and miscellaneous repairs	$639.40		Rubbish removal and miscellaneous repairs
Repairs and painting	$1,279.38		Repairs and painting
Light and smoke alarms	$444.48		Light and smoke alarms
Kitchen bench damage (insurance excess	$400.00		Kitchen bench damage (insurance excess
Roller blind cleaning	$175.00		Roller blind cleaning
Cleaning	$480.00		Cleaning
Blind repairs	$517.50		Blind repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$235.71	Rent credit
Total award	$4,591.11	$235.71
Net award	$2,155.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,155.40

Order

Matthew Joseph Exeter must pay Max Property Management (MPM) Limited as Agent for Caramel Investments $2,155.40 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6448204-006) to Max Property Management (MPM) Limited as Agent for Caramel Investments immediately.

Reasons

Ms Bayliss attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
Shortly after the hearing began, the Tribunal received an email from the tenant stating that he was in custody, had no means to contact the Tribunal and therefore he was unable to attend the hearing.
There was no request for an adjournment, but I will assume that the tenant wanted an adjournment.
I did not adjourn the hearing. I proceeded to hear the landlord’s application and I have made a final order on the application. I did so for the following reasons.
At the previous hearing of this application, I made an order terminating the tenancy for anti-social behaviour and giving the landlord possession of the premises on 19 December 2023. At that time there were also claims for rent arrears and carpet damage.
I adjourned the landlord’s money claims and directed the landlord to file details of any other claims at least 7 days before the next hearing.
The landlord presented a list of 9 other claims today with supporting evidence. It seems that due to an administrative lapse in the landlord’s office, those documents were not sent to the Tribunal as required by the order. Therefore, the tenant has not received notice of them.
Ordinarily, that would result in either an adjournment or a dismissal of the claims that were not notified to the tenant. But there are reasons in this case for proceeding to hear the claims.
At the last hearing it was apparent that, for whatever reason, the tenant had limited recollection of the anti-social behaviour that went on at the premises. There had been a general downturn in the way that the tenant was treating the premises.
Ms Bayliss told me that the tenant left the premises before the possession date and went into Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch. It seems that he was suffering some mental health problems which is consistent with the decline in his behaviour in respect of the tenancy.
It is therefore uncertain when or if the tenant will be able to engage with this application. In the meantime, the landlord has incurred significant costs and the bond is sitting with the Bond Centre. It also follows that even if the tenant had received notice of the claims, he would not have attended today.
After considering the landlord’s claims and the evidence in support of them, it is obvious that there was significant damage to the premises during the tenancy, the landlord’s claims were very well supported by evidence and the landlord had gone above and beyond in terms of keeping the costs claimed against the tenant to a reasonable level. Indeed, I am satisfied that there were other costs that the landlord could have claimed and recovered which they have borne themselves.
For these reasons, and in the parties’ shared interests of concluding this application, I have made this final order. Rent
The rent was in credit in the sum of $235.71 when the tenancy ended on 19 December and that credit has been set off against the landlord’s claims. Law
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.
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).
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. Claims
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and the tenant had not removed all rubbish from the premises.
The tenant’s family and his flat mate helped remove some of the tenant’s belongings, but there was a substantial amount left that the landlord had to remove.
A waste plug and three smoke alarms were missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy.
There was damage to carpet in the bedrooms which had to be replaced due to staining, there was damage to walls and joinery, a light was damaged, the kitchen bench was damaged, possibly by some sort of caustic material, and blinds were damaged.
The damage was beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Some of the damage appears to have been caused intentionally.
The damage to the carpet and the kitchen bench was covered by the landlord’s insurance and so the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excesses. The repair and painting of the walls and joinery was the result of numerous different events and the cost of each event was below the excess.
The amounts ordered were proved by the production of photographs and invoices. Filing Fee
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734213 — Property damage at Flat 2, 38 Aberdeen Street, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734213 — Property damage at Flat 2, 38 Aberdeen Street, Christchurch 8013

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