What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756170?

The tribunal order states: Kasteal Matthews must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Swanson Acting Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4756170?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Door Frame And Locsk: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $860.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord; Remediation Internal Walls: $5,475.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756170?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143711-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756170?

The tribunal order states: Kasteal Matthews must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Swanson Acting Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4756170?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Door Frame And Locsk: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $860.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord; Remediation Internal Walls: $5,475.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756170?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143711-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Elvira Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756170 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756170 — net $11,222.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remediation internal walls	$5,475.00	Remediation internal walls
Carpet replacement	$860.00	Carpet replacement
Toilet and bath replacement	$1,450.00	Toilet and bath replacement
Door frame and locsk	$400.00	Door frame and locsk
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	rubbish generated in repairing tenant damage. I have ordered the tenant to pay $2,500.00 of that cost.
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44. R Woodhouse 28 March 2024 _____________________________________________…
Net award	$11,222.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,222.94

Order

Kasteal Matthews must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Swanson Acting Agent For Habib, Ahsan & Rehena $11,222.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Remediation internal walls$5,475.00 Carpet replacement$860.00 Toilet and bath replacement$1,450.00 Door frame and locsk$400.00 Rubbish removal$2,500.00 Cleaning$517.50 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$11,222.94 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$11,222.94

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 26 November 2018. The landlord is Ahsan and Rehena Habib, represented by an agent, Barfoot & Thompson. The sole tenant is Kasteal Matthews.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal [application 4614533] on the basis of damage to the premises that the tenant or someone on the premises with the consent of the tenant had caused.
Following the premises being returned to the landlord, the landlord needed to undertake extensive work to remediate the premises, including cleaning and repairs. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for compensation in relation to that work.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord seeks compensation of $517.50 for cleaning. I accept based on the evidence from the landlord, and the photographs taken near the end of the tenancy, that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is established and ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' 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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord has submitted an invoice from Kinari Constructions Limited dated 3 December 2023, for the remediation costs. The amount of the invoice was $18,802.50 which comprise the damage claim of the landlord, as I will set out shortly.
I note at this juncture, that as I discussed with the representatives this morning, when I consider claims for damage repairs, I must apply depreciation where appropriate, the agents accepted that was the case. Repairs and painting to walls and ceiling
The landlord seeks compensation of $7,300.00 for repairs to the ceilings and wall. The photographs presented show multiple holes around the internal walls, and it appears that some areas have had attempts at repairs made by the tenant, but the standard of the repairs is very poor, and need to have the repair done again. There is graffiti on the inside of the dwelling that would also have needed to be painted over.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproven liability. I consider given the extent of the damage the damage is likely to be intentional damage meaning the tenant is liable for the full amount of the remediation costs.
It is not reasonable to depreciate any of the costs for the repairs, depreciation would only apply to the painting work. In the absence of more details separation of costs, I consider it reasonable to apportion half of the invoice to repairs, meaning the tenant is liable for $3,650.00 toward the repairs. In relation to the remaining costs for the repainting, it is reasonable the tenant pay half of that charge, being $1,825.00. The end result is the tenant is liable for $5,475.00 of the remediation costs for the walls and ceiling. Carpet
The carpet replacement cost was $4,300.00. I accept the carpet was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy, and that it was new in 2016. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was extensively stained. Given the extent of the staining, I must also conclude the tenant would have been aware of the carpet being damaged, which places the damage into the intentional category.
Given the likely age of the carpet, it could be expected that it would be nearing the end of its useful life for carpet in a rental property. However given the extent of the staining I consider the tenant should be liable for a contribution toward replacing the carpet which will probably have required replacement sooner than it otherwise would have needed.
On balance I consider the tenant should contribute to 20% of the replacement cost, being $860.00. Toilet and bath tub replacement
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement of the toilet and bathtub. Landlord states that there was damage to the cistern where it was burnt or carved. Because of the type of toilet the whole toilet needed to be replaced. Holes had been smashed in the bathtub.
On the evidence this is likely to be intentional damage. It is not reasonable to apply depreciation to replacement of these items, the tenant is liable for the full replacement costs of $1,450.00. Door frame and door handle replacement
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement of a door frame which the landlord states looks to have been damaged by being forced. Door handles were broken.
This is likely to be intentional damage. The tenant is liable for the full repair costs of $400.00. Rubbish disposal costs
Finally the Kinari invoice has charged $2,900.00 for the dumping of rubbish. That I understand from the invoice and other evidence comprises tenant rubbish left on the premises, and also the construction rubbish.
I consider it reasonable to modestly reduce this invoice, because it included dumping of the old carpet, most of the costs of which I have apportioned to the landlord (owner). Otherwise the tenant would be liable for the tenant rubbish removal costs in full, as she would for the dumping of the rubbish generated in repairing tenant damage. I have ordered the tenant to pay $2,500.00 of that cost.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756170 — net $11,222.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remediation internal walls	$5,475.00	Remediation internal walls
Carpet replacement	$860.00	Carpet replacement
Toilet and bath replacement	$1,450.00	Toilet and bath replacement
Door frame and locsk	$400.00	Door frame and locsk
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	rubbish generated in repairing tenant damage. I have ordered the tenant to pay $2,500.00 of that cost.
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44. R Woodhouse 28 March 2024 _____________________________________________…
Net award	$11,222.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,222.94

Order

Kasteal Matthews must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Swanson Acting Agent For Habib, Ahsan & Rehena $11,222.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Remediation internal walls$5,475.00 Carpet replacement$860.00 Toilet and bath replacement$1,450.00 Door frame and locsk$400.00 Rubbish removal$2,500.00 Cleaning$517.50 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$11,222.94 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$11,222.94

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been property notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 26 November 2018. The landlord is Ahsan and Rehena Habib, represented by an agent, Barfoot & Thompson. The sole tenant is Kasteal Matthews.
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal [application 4614533] on the basis of damage to the premises that the tenant or someone on the premises with the consent of the tenant had caused.
Following the premises being returned to the landlord, the landlord needed to undertake extensive work to remediate the premises, including cleaning and repairs. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for compensation in relation to that work.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord seeks compensation of $517.50 for cleaning. I accept based on the evidence from the landlord, and the photographs taken near the end of the tenancy, that the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. This claim is established and ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' 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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord has submitted an invoice from Kinari Constructions Limited dated 3 December 2023, for the remediation costs. The amount of the invoice was $18,802.50 which comprise the damage claim of the landlord, as I will set out shortly.
I note at this juncture, that as I discussed with the representatives this morning, when I consider claims for damage repairs, I must apply depreciation where appropriate, the agents accepted that was the case. Repairs and painting to walls and ceiling
The landlord seeks compensation of $7,300.00 for repairs to the ceilings and wall. The photographs presented show multiple holes around the internal walls, and it appears that some areas have had attempts at repairs made by the tenant, but the standard of the repairs is very poor, and need to have the repair done again. There is graffiti on the inside of the dwelling that would also have needed to be painted over.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproven liability. I consider given the extent of the damage the damage is likely to be intentional damage meaning the tenant is liable for the full amount of the remediation costs.
It is not reasonable to depreciate any of the costs for the repairs, depreciation would only apply to the painting work. In the absence of more details separation of costs, I consider it reasonable to apportion half of the invoice to repairs, meaning the tenant is liable for $3,650.00 toward the repairs. In relation to the remaining costs for the repainting, it is reasonable the tenant pay half of that charge, being $1,825.00. The end result is the tenant is liable for $5,475.00 of the remediation costs for the walls and ceiling. Carpet
The carpet replacement cost was $4,300.00. I accept the carpet was in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy, and that it was new in 2016. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was extensively stained. Given the extent of the staining, I must also conclude the tenant would have been aware of the carpet being damaged, which places the damage into the intentional category.
Given the likely age of the carpet, it could be expected that it would be nearing the end of its useful life for carpet in a rental property. However given the extent of the staining I consider the tenant should be liable for a contribution toward replacing the carpet which will probably have required replacement sooner than it otherwise would have needed.
On balance I consider the tenant should contribute to 20% of the replacement cost, being $860.00. Toilet and bath tub replacement
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement of the toilet and bathtub. Landlord states that there was damage to the cistern where it was burnt or carved. Because of the type of toilet the whole toilet needed to be replaced. Holes had been smashed in the bathtub.
On the evidence this is likely to be intentional damage. It is not reasonable to apply depreciation to replacement of these items, the tenant is liable for the full replacement costs of $1,450.00. Door frame and door handle replacement
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement of a door frame which the landlord states looks to have been damaged by being forced. Door handles were broken.
This is likely to be intentional damage. The tenant is liable for the full repair costs of $400.00. Rubbish disposal costs
Finally the Kinari invoice has charged $2,900.00 for the dumping of rubbish. That I understand from the invoice and other evidence comprises tenant rubbish left on the premises, and also the construction rubbish.
I consider it reasonable to modestly reduce this invoice, because it included dumping of the old carpet, most of the costs of which I have apportioned to the landlord (owner). Otherwise the tenant would be liable for the tenant rubbish removal costs in full, as she would for the dumping of the rubbish generated in repairing tenant damage. I have ordered the tenant to pay $2,500.00 of that cost.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756170 — Property damage at 17 Elvira Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756170 — Property damage at 17 Elvira Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions