What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740709?

The tribunal order states: Liam Nye is to pay Nationwide Property Management Limited $1,494.44

How much money was awarded in case 4740709?

Rubbish Removal: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740709?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10012289-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740709?

The tribunal order states: Liam Nye is to pay Nationwide Property Management Limited $1,494.44

How much money was awarded in case 4740709?

Rubbish Removal: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740709?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10012289-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Cabin N4, 403 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4740709 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740709 — net $1,494.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.10.2023	$600.00	Rent arrears to 13.10.2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$126.50	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$287.50	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$460.00	Window repairs
Net award	$1,494.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,494.44

Order

Liam Nye is to pay Nationwide Property Management Limited $1,494.44 immediately, by paying Nationwide Property Management Limited $1,400.00 from the bond, and paying Nationwide Property Management Limited $94.44 himself, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (6506182-004) to Nationwide Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

Ms Wilson and Ms Hakaraia attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr Nye, the tenant, did not attend the hearing. As he had been served, the hearing proceeded in his 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 13 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, which is $600.00.

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 (“RTA”).
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the tenant’s cabin at the end of the tenancy, which show food, medication bottles, belongings all strewn on the floor throughout the cabin, open drawers with items spilling out, onions strewn on the floor. There was rubbish and mess throughout the areas shown in the photographs. The cabin was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claimed $126.50 for cleaning and removal of rubbish, which they said took around 3-4 hours with 3 people working. They clarified this did not include any dump fees. In the circumstances and given the evidence provided, I find this to be a reasonable cost for cleaning and rubbish removal. Therefore, I award the landlord $126.50 for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys and had changed the front door lock without their consent. The landlord claimed $287.50 for changing the lock at the tenant’s cabin. I find this to be a reasonable cost for doing this and award the landlord $287.50 for replacing the tenant’s lock.
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:
The landlord said Mr Nye kicked in the door frame of a room in which his girlfriend was living in their boarding house, which was separate from the tenant’s cabin. The landlord said they noticed damage to this door frame, asked Mr Nye’s girlfriend to pay for the damage, then she told them Mr Nye had kicked in the door frame. The landlord said his girlfriend left their boarding house a couple of weeks later.
The landlord claimed $287.50 for repairing the part of the door frame that was damaged and replacing the lock affected in that door in the girlfriend’s room. There was no statement provided by the resident of the room with the damaged door frame but there were photographs of the damage to the door frame provided by the landlord. In these circumstances, I find there has not been sufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove their claim that it was Mr Nye who caused this damage, and so dismiss this claim.
The landlord said that Mr Nye damaged the window frame in his cabin, as he locked himself out and jimmied the window frame to get back into his cabin, before he left the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of damage to the window and its latch. Given the evidence, I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The cost of replacing the window was claimed by the landlord to be $1,000.00 plus GST. The landlord did not provide evidence of the hourly rate for repairing the window or the time taken for the repair, and estimated the size of the window was approximately 70 cms x 90 cms in size. The landlord said the window frame had to be replaced, not the window pane. I find the amount claimed of $1,000.00 plus GST to be excessive, given the lack of evidence provided about the cost breakdown of what was involved, to replace the window frame, and find a reasonable cost to do this to be $400.00 plus GST, for a total of $460.00.
The landlord’s evidence was that the window frames formed part of a completely new cabin, which was only around 12-13 months old at the time of the hearing, according to Ms Wilson. As I would expect such a window frame with aluminium joinery to last at least 30-50 years, there is no need for depreciation here. Thus, I award the landlord $460.00 to replace the window frame.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Nationwide Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740709 — net $1,494.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.10.2023	$600.00	Rent arrears to 13.10.2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$126.50	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$287.50	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$460.00	Window repairs
Net award	$1,494.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,494.44

Order

Liam Nye is to pay Nationwide Property Management Limited $1,494.44 immediately, by paying Nationwide Property Management Limited $1,400.00 from the bond, and paying Nationwide Property Management Limited $94.44 himself, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (6506182-004) to Nationwide Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

Ms Wilson and Ms Hakaraia attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr Nye, the tenant, did not attend the hearing. As he had been served, the hearing proceeded in his 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 13 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, which is $600.00.

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 (“RTA”).
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the tenant’s cabin at the end of the tenancy, which show food, medication bottles, belongings all strewn on the floor throughout the cabin, open drawers with items spilling out, onions strewn on the floor. There was rubbish and mess throughout the areas shown in the photographs. The cabin was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claimed $126.50 for cleaning and removal of rubbish, which they said took around 3-4 hours with 3 people working. They clarified this did not include any dump fees. In the circumstances and given the evidence provided, I find this to be a reasonable cost for cleaning and rubbish removal. Therefore, I award the landlord $126.50 for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys and had changed the front door lock without their consent. The landlord claimed $287.50 for changing the lock at the tenant’s cabin. I find this to be a reasonable cost for doing this and award the landlord $287.50 for replacing the tenant’s lock.
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:
The landlord said Mr Nye kicked in the door frame of a room in which his girlfriend was living in their boarding house, which was separate from the tenant’s cabin. The landlord said they noticed damage to this door frame, asked Mr Nye’s girlfriend to pay for the damage, then she told them Mr Nye had kicked in the door frame. The landlord said his girlfriend left their boarding house a couple of weeks later.
The landlord claimed $287.50 for repairing the part of the door frame that was damaged and replacing the lock affected in that door in the girlfriend’s room. There was no statement provided by the resident of the room with the damaged door frame but there were photographs of the damage to the door frame provided by the landlord. In these circumstances, I find there has not been sufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove their claim that it was Mr Nye who caused this damage, and so dismiss this claim.
The landlord said that Mr Nye damaged the window frame in his cabin, as he locked himself out and jimmied the window frame to get back into his cabin, before he left the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of damage to the window and its latch. Given the evidence, I find this to be intentional damage on the tenant’s part. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The cost of replacing the window was claimed by the landlord to be $1,000.00 plus GST. The landlord did not provide evidence of the hourly rate for repairing the window or the time taken for the repair, and estimated the size of the window was approximately 70 cms x 90 cms in size. The landlord said the window frame had to be replaced, not the window pane. I find the amount claimed of $1,000.00 plus GST to be excessive, given the lack of evidence provided about the cost breakdown of what was involved, to replace the window frame, and find a reasonable cost to do this to be $400.00 plus GST, for a total of $460.00.
The landlord’s evidence was that the window frames formed part of a completely new cabin, which was only around 12-13 months old at the time of the hearing, according to Ms Wilson. As I would expect such a window frame with aluminium joinery to last at least 30-50 years, there is no need for depreciation here. Thus, I award the landlord $460.00 to replace the window frame.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Nationwide Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740709 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Cabin N4, 403 Ormond Road, Mangapapa,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740709 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Cabin N4, 403 Ormond Road, Mangapapa,

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