What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4747009?

The tribunal order states: Riha Punakai must pay Riverlands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Steven

How much money was awarded in case 4747009?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,182.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,047.66 awarded to landlord; Replace Glass Door Panel: $393.20 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Including Oven: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,459.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747009?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10012257-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4747009?

The tribunal order states: Riha Punakai must pay Riverlands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Steven

How much money was awarded in case 4747009?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,182.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,047.66 awarded to landlord; Replace Glass Door Panel: $393.20 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Including Oven: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,459.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747009?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10012257-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat C, 12 Tither, Huntly, Waikato 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4747009 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4747009 — net $7,691.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 December 2023	$2,047.66	Rent arrears to 4 December 2023
Water rates: to 4 December 2023	$1,459.01	Water rates: to 4 December 2023
Rubbish removal	$920.25	Rubbish removal
Repairs to holes in walls and door	$3,182.62	Repairs to holes in walls and door
Repairs: to kitchen including oven	$850.00	Repairs: to kitchen including oven
Repairs: replace glass door panel	$393.20	Repairs: replace glass door panel
Lock/key replacement	$448.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,691.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,691.68

Order

This order corrects and replaces the order I issued earlier today for this application.

Riha Punakai must pay Riverlands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Steven James Thompson $7,691.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,630.00 (6238880-001) to Riverlands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Steven James Thompson immediately.

Reasons

In typing up my order earlier today I made an error as I failed to include in the Order section of my decision the compensation amount awarded for repairs to holes in walls/door as set out in paragraph 19 below. Paragraph 19 appeared in my original order. Apart from this error the “Reasons” section of my order remains the same, that is: Reasons:

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 4 December 2023 as the result of the landlord giving the tenant notice that the property was being sold. The tenancy premises were newly built when the tenancy started in November 2018.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 left a significant amount of rubbish and personal belongings at the premises. I am satisfied the personal belongings left at the tenancy had a value below the cost of storing, transporting and selling the goods.
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 was caused during the tenancy: a) damage to Kitchen:
The landlord claims 50% of the cost to replace the kitchen ($3,750.00). The landlord’s view is that the tenant damaged the kitchen to the extent that the general appearance of the kitchen was not acceptable for the next tenant and that as the tenancy ended in early December tradesmen would not be available until the end of January to rectify damage. The landlord says the time to source replacement goods would have taken a while and caused loss of rent, and that all together replacing the kitchen for $7,500 was cheaper than carrying our repair work.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant or others at the property with her permission caused damage to a large drawer; one drawer was missing; the hinges on the pantry door needed to be replaced; and the oven was not working. The landlord/owner said the sink was damaged to the extent that the seal between the sink and the bench was affected. The photographs provided did not clearly demonstrate that this was the case, however they do establish a dent in the corner edge of the sink that sits on the bench.
I find the landlord has not established that the damage caused by the tenant was such that it warranted a replacement kitchen. Nor am I convinced that the tenant is liable for 50% of the cost of the new kitchen for the other reasons given by the landlord. I note the landlord’s intention to sell rather than re-tenant the premises.
Given my findings above of damage caused by the tenant to the kitchen, I find it reasonable to award $850.00 in compensation for that damage. I am satisfied that electrical costs of around $230.00 were incurred to install the new stove. The remainder of the award for replacement drawers, hinges and oven and considers reasonable costs for these items having taken into account betterment and depreciation particularly for the replacement oven. b) Holes in walls/door
A significant number of holes in walls of varying sizes was caused during the tenancy. A large hole was caused to one door. The tenant had carried out dome repair work to some holes however none of the damage was repaired to the extent that no further work was required. I find the cost claimed is reasonable for the damage established in the photographs presented. c) Bottom glass panel on external door
The bottom glass panel on an external door was broken. The landlord was told the glass was broken so that entry could be gained to the property as those wanting to enter (children) did not have their key with them.
The landlord says the damage to the kitchen and to the doors and walls had not occurred when an inspection was carried out in September and is of the view the damage was caused in retaliation by the tenant and those living in the property with her, after the notice to terminate was given.
The amount of damage to the walls in such a short time leads me to the conclusion that the damage was intentional. The damage to the oven, (which included that the door hinges were broken, rubber seal/s removed, and the knobs would not work) also is in keeping with the damage being intentional. Given that the tenant did not advise the landlord of any damage to the kitchen and that the damage has occurred after the last inspection I find all other damage in the kitchen is intentionally caused. I also find the damage to the glass panel in the door was intentionally broken for the reasons recorded above.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4747009 — net $7,691.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 December 2023	$2,047.66	Rent arrears to 4 December 2023
Water rates: to 4 December 2023	$1,459.01	Water rates: to 4 December 2023
Rubbish removal	$920.25	Rubbish removal
Repairs to holes in walls and door	$3,182.62	Repairs to holes in walls and door
Repairs: to kitchen including oven	$850.00	Repairs: to kitchen including oven
Repairs: replace glass door panel	$393.20	Repairs: replace glass door panel
Lock/key replacement	$448.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,691.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,691.68

Order

This order corrects and replaces the order I issued earlier today for this application.

Riha Punakai must pay Riverlands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Steven James Thompson $7,691.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,630.00 (6238880-001) to Riverlands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Steven James Thompson immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 4 December 2023 as the result of the landlord giving the tenant notice that the property was being sold. The tenancy premises were newly built when the tenancy started in November 2018.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 left a significant amount of rubbish and personal belongings at the premises. I am satisfied the personal belongings left at the tenancy had a value below the cost of storing, transporting and selling the goods.
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 was caused during the tenancy: a) damage to Kitchen:
The landlord claims 50% of the cost to replace the kitchen ($3,750.00). The landlord’s view is that the tenant damaged the kitchen to the extent that the general appearance of the kitchen was not acceptable for the next tenant and that as the tenancy ended in early December tradesmen would not be available until the end of January to rectify damage. The landlord says the time to source replacement goods would have taken a while and caused loss of rent, and that all together replacing the kitchen for $7,500 was cheaper than carrying our repair work.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant or others at the property with her permission caused damage to a large drawer; one drawer was missing; the hinges on the pantry door needed to be replaced; and the oven was not working. The landlord/owner said the sink was damaged to the extent that the seal between the sink and the bench was affected. The photographs provided did not clearly demonstrate that this was the case, however they do establish a dent in the corner edge of the sink that sits on the bench.
I find the landlord has not established that the damage caused by the tenant was such that it warranted a replacement kitchen. Nor am I convinced that the tenant is liable for 50% of the cost of the new kitchen for the other reasons given by the landlord. I note the landlord’s intention to sell rather than re-tenant the premises.
Given my findings above of damage caused by the tenant to the kitchen, I find it reasonable to award $850.00 in compensation for that damage. I am satisfied that electrical costs of around $230.00 were incurred to install the new stove. The remainder of the award for replacement drawers, hinges and oven and considers reasonable costs for these items having taken into account betterment and depreciation particularly for the replacement oven. b) Holes in walls/door
A significant number of holes in walls of varying sizes was caused during the tenancy. A large hole was caused to one door. The tenant had carried out dome repair work to some holes however none of the damage was repaired to the extent that no further work was required. I find the cost claimed is reasonable for the damage established in the photographs presented. c) Bottom glass panel on external door
The bottom glass panel on an external door was broken. The landlord was told the glass was broken so that entry could be gained to the property as those wanting to enter (children) did not have their key with them.
The landlord says the damage to the kitchen and to the doors and walls had not occurred when an inspection was carried out in September and is of the view the damage was caused in retaliation by the tenant and those living in the property with her, after the notice to terminate was given.
The amount of damage to the walls in such a short time leads me to the conclusion that the damage was intentional. The damage to the oven, (which included that the door hinges were broken, rubber seal/s removed, and the knobs would not work) also is in keeping with the damage being intentional. Given that the tenant did not advise the landlord of any damage to the kitchen and that the damage has occurred after the last inspection I find all other damage in the kitchen is intentionally caused. I also find the damage to the glass panel in the door was intentionally broken for the reasons recorded above.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747009 — Property damage at Unit/Flat C, 12 Tither, Huntly, Waikato 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747009 — Property damage at Unit/Flat C, 12 Tither, Huntly, Waikato 3700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 and water rates?

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