What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743738?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Kerr and Jason Byron must pay Dunedin City Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4743738?

Cleaning: $1,132.49 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Mitre 10 Expense Claims: $559.87 awarded to landlord; New World Expense Claims: $147.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.85 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $710.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743738?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9924541-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743738?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Kerr and Jason Byron must pay Dunedin City Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4743738?

Cleaning: $1,132.49 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Mitre 10 Expense Claims: $559.87 awarded to landlord; New World Expense Claims: $147.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $44.85 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $710.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743738?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9924541-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Elizabeth Avenue, East Taieri, Mosgiel 9024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4743738 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4743738 — net $9,789.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance Excesses	$8,500.00	Insurance Excesses
Lawns and Garden work: Green waste removal	$15.00	Lawns and Garden work: Green waste removal
Replace furnishings: Bedroom lightshade replacement	$44.85	Replace furnishings: Bedroom lightshade replacement
Mitre 10 expense claims	$559.87	Mitre 10 expense claims
New World expense claims	$147.00	New World expense claims
Rubbish removal: Skip bin removal x 2	$710.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin removal x 2
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$1,132.49	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,789.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,789.65

Sasha Kerr and Jason Byron must pay Dunedin City Property Management Limited As Agent For Celeste Crawford, Cathleen Crawford And David Ehler As Trustees Of The Chickadee Trust and Celeste Crawford $9,789.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (5932790-001) to Dunedin City Property Management Limited As Agent For Celeste Crawford, Cathleen Crawford And David Ehler As Trustees Of The Chickadee Trust and Celeste Crawford immediately.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The premises consisted of four bedrooms, two bathrooms and three toilets. The tenancy began on 23 October 2022 and ended on 20 September 2023. The parties attended mediation where they agreed to terminate based on rental arrears. The landlords say that it was not until the final inspection on 20 September 2023 that they discovered the state of the property.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenants also left behind a couch, an old spa pool, car tyres, a mattress and dining room chairs. The kitchen was filthy, and the dishwasher left full of dishes. The exterior of the property was a mess, with a skip left behind with rotting rubbish and cigarette butts in the garden. The landlord provided good quality photographic evidence taken at the conclusion of tenancy. Having sighted all photographs provided I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries. The landlord also provided detailed receipts for consumables from Mitre 10 and New World which I have sighted.

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.

During the exit inspection the landlords noticed a smell of animal urine. There were cat faeces on the lounge carpet, numerous holes in walls including where the tenants had installed a television on the wall. There was damage to curtains caused by dog urine. Many of the curtains had been ripped away from the hooks at the top. There were curtains were missing in the hallway. Smoke alarms were missing. There was a hole inside the gib on the wall of the stairs. There was damage to paintwork on walls and doors. There were scratches on doors from dogs. The carpet had significant damage and had to be replaced. There were broken lampshades in several bedrooms, holes in bedroom walls and a door handle broken off on one of the bedroom doors. The oven was damaged beyond repair. The landlord also found an abandoned cat in the laundry. There was damage to an exterior coach light which appeared to have been driven into. The tenants also damaged the automatic gate opener motor.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Based on the extensive evidence filed in support of the landlord’s application I am satisfied that the damage is intentional.

The landlord confirmed during the hearing that insurance has been paid out and the damaged items replaced. The landlord also provided a schedule from McLarens Chartered Loss Adjusters confirming the excesses charged for each damage claim.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Dunedin City Property Management Limited As Agent For Celeste Crawford, Cathleen Crawford And David Ehler As Trustees Of The Chickadee Trust, Celeste Crawford has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4743738 — net $9,789.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance Excesses	$8,500.00	Insurance Excesses
Lawns and Garden work: Green waste removal	$15.00	Lawns and Garden work: Green waste removal
Replace furnishings: Bedroom lightshade replacement	$44.85	Replace furnishings: Bedroom lightshade replacement
Mitre 10 expense claims	$559.87	Mitre 10 expense claims
New World expense claims	$147.00	New World expense claims
Rubbish removal: Skip bin removal x 2	$710.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bin removal x 2
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$1,132.49	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,789.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,789.65

Order

Sasha Kerr and Jason Byron must pay Dunedin City Property Management Limited As Agent For Celeste Crawford, Cathleen Crawford And David Ehler As Trustees Of The Chickadee Trust and Celeste Crawford $9,789.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (5932790-001) to Dunedin City Property Management Limited As Agent For Celeste Crawford, Cathleen Crawford And David Ehler As Trustees Of The Chickadee Trust and Celeste Crawford immediately.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises consisted of four bedrooms, two bathrooms and three toilets. The tenancy began on 23 October 2022 and ended on 20 September 2023. The parties attended mediation where they agreed to terminate based on rental arrears. The landlords say that it was not until the final inspection on 20 September 2023 that they discovered the state of the property.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenants also left behind a couch, an old spa pool, car tyres, a mattress and dining room chairs. The kitchen was filthy, and the dishwasher left full of dishes. The exterior of the property was a mess, with a skip left behind with rotting rubbish and cigarette butts in the garden. The landlord provided good quality photographic evidence taken at the conclusion of tenancy. Having sighted all photographs provided I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries. The landlord also provided detailed receipts for consumables from Mitre 10 and New World which I have sighted.
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.
During the exit inspection the landlords noticed a smell of animal urine. There were cat faeces on the lounge carpet, numerous holes in walls including where the tenants had installed a television on the wall. There was damage to curtains caused by dog urine. Many of the curtains had been ripped away from the hooks at the top. There were curtains were missing in the hallway. Smoke alarms were missing. There was a hole inside the gib on the wall of the stairs. There was damage to paintwork on walls and doors. There were scratches on doors from dogs. The carpet had significant damage and had to be replaced. There were broken lampshades in several bedrooms, holes in bedroom walls and a door handle broken off on one of the bedroom doors. The oven was damaged beyond repair. The landlord also found an abandoned cat in the laundry. There was damage to an exterior coach light which appeared to have been driven into. The tenants also damaged the automatic gate opener motor.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Based on the extensive evidence filed in support of the landlord’s application I am satisfied that the damage is intentional.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that insurance has been paid out and the damaged items replaced. The landlord also provided a schedule from McLarens Chartered Loss Adjusters confirming the excesses charged for each damage claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Dunedin City Property Management Limited As Agent For Celeste Crawford, Cathleen Crawford And David Ehler As Trustees Of The Chickadee Trust, Celeste Crawford has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743738 — Property damage at 15 Elizabeth Avenue, East Taieri, Mosgiel 9024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743738 — Property damage at 15 Elizabeth Avenue, East Taieri, Mosgiel 9024

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions