What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4786140?

The tribunal order states: Dennis Taute must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent For Sue And Norman

How much money was awarded in case 4786140?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $94.45 awarded to landlord; No Fault Call Out: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Power Reconnection: $39.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rehang Curtains: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Two Doors: $675.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786140?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10285176-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4786140?

The tribunal order states: Dennis Taute must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent For Sue And Norman

How much money was awarded in case 4786140?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $94.45 awarded to landlord; No Fault Call Out: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Power Reconnection: $39.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rehang Curtains: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Two Doors: $675.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786140?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10285176-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 1241 Victoria Street, Whitiora, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786140 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 1241 Victoria Street, Whitiora, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786140 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4786140 — net $1,585.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rehang curtains	$100.00	Rehang curtains
Light bulbs/batteries	$94.45	Light bulbs/batteries
Rubbish removal: exterior	$287.50	Rubbish removal: exterior
Carpet Cleaning: stain removal	$92.00	Carpet Cleaning: stain removal
Power reconnection	$39.43	Power reconnection
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
No fault call out	$126.50	No fault call out
Repairs: two doors	$675.00	Repairs: two doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,585.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,585.32

Claims and awards for application 4786140 — net $1,585.32 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rehang curtains

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rehang curtains

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $94.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Rubbish removal: exterior

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: exterior

Carpet Cleaning: stain removal

Amount: $92.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: stain removal

Power reconnection

Amount: $39.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Power reconnection

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Dennis Taute must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent For Sue And Norman Sharpe $1,585.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed for carpet stain removal for three areas but only provided evidence of one area. The award is reduced because of this. The amount claimed to reconnect power for the carpets to be cleaned is awarded as the power would not have been needed if the tenant had left the carpets reasonable clean and tidy.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. Photographs were provided of rubbish left outside which included a couch and multiple cans and bags of rubbish. The amount is awarded as claimed.
The tenant did not return the keys. A copy of the keys given and signed for was provided.
The landlord had to replace 6 light bulbs and rehang 6 curtains that the tenants had taken down during the tenancy. These claims were spported by photographs and are awarded.
The claim for cleaning is dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The landlords were invoiced for a repair callout that was not due to faults with the premises but were related to the tenant’s television. This amount is awarded as it was not a maintenance issue.
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: two doors had holes in them. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Photos of the damaged doors were provided, and I find the damages careless damage. A quote was provided for the repairs which included replacing the hollow core doors with solid core ones.
The amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed this repair. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan and that the replacement doors are of better quality than the original ones.
Because Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Sue And Norman Sharpe has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4786140 — net $1,585.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rehang curtains	$100.00	Rehang curtains
Light bulbs/batteries	$94.45	Light bulbs/batteries
Rubbish removal: exterior	$287.50	Rubbish removal: exterior
Carpet Cleaning: stain removal	$92.00	Carpet Cleaning: stain removal
Power reconnection	$39.43	Power reconnection
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
No fault call out	$126.50	No fault call out
Repairs: two doors	$675.00	Repairs: two doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,585.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,585.32

Claims and awards for application 4786140 — net $1,585.32 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rehang curtains

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rehang curtains

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $94.45
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Rubbish removal: exterior

Amount: $287.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: exterior

Carpet Cleaning: stain removal

Amount: $92.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: stain removal

Power reconnection

Amount: $39.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Power reconnection

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Dennis Taute must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent For Sue And Norman Sharpe $1,585.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed for carpet stain removal for three areas but only provided evidence of one area. The award is reduced because of this. The amount claimed to reconnect power for the carpets to be cleaned is awarded as the power would not have been needed if the tenant had left the carpets reasonable clean and tidy.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. Photographs were provided of rubbish left outside which included a couch and multiple cans and bags of rubbish. The amount is awarded as claimed.
The tenant did not return the keys. A copy of the keys given and signed for was provided.
The landlord had to replace 6 light bulbs and rehang 6 curtains that the tenants had taken down during the tenancy. These claims were spported by photographs and are awarded.
The claim for cleaning is dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The landlords were invoiced for a repair callout that was not due to faults with the premises but were related to the tenant’s television. This amount is awarded as it was not a maintenance issue.
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: two doors had holes in them. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Photos of the damaged doors were provided, and I find the damages careless damage. A quote was provided for the repairs which included replacing the hollow core doors with solid core ones.
The amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed this repair. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan and that the replacement doors are of better quality than the original ones.
Because Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Sue And Norman Sharpe has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786140 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 1241 Victoria Street, Whitiora, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786140 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 1241 Victoria Street, Whitiora, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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