What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4795860?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Smyth must pay Jane Ching-yan Walsh and Jordan Walsh $1,849.11

How much money was awarded in case 4795860?

Cleaning: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Cook Top Knobs: $73.54 awarded to landlord; Door Stops: $26.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flea Bomb: $35.98 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Oven Knobs: $20.88 awarded to landlord; Paint For Patching: $11.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $57.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795860?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4795860?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Smyth must pay Jane Ching-yan Walsh and Jordan Walsh $1,849.11

How much money was awarded in case 4795860?

Cleaning: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Cook Top Knobs: $73.54 awarded to landlord; Door Stops: $26.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flea Bomb: $35.98 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Oven Knobs: $20.88 awarded to landlord; Paint For Patching: $11.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $57.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795860?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Kanono Close, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4795860 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795860 — net $1,849.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Landlord repairs	$600.00	Landlord repairs
Heat pump remote	$103.50	Heat pump remote
Garage remote	$400.00	Garage remote
Paint for patching	$11.95	Paint for patching
Door stops	$26.32	Door stops
Rubbish removal: 3 cubic meter bin	$235.00	Rubbish removal: 3 cubic meter bin
Rubbish removal: extra weight charge	$57.00	Rubbish removal: extra weight charge
Flea bomb	$35.98	Flea bomb
Oven knobs	$20.88	Oven knobs
Cook top knobs	$73.54	Cook top knobs
Carpet Cleaning	$264.50	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,849.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,849.11

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.

The premises are owned by a family trust called J and J Walsh Family Trust, and this entity is named as the landlord in the tenancy agreement. The name of the applicant is changed to reflect this.

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

The tenancy ended on 19 January 2024 after being terminated for rent arrears by the Tenancy Tribunal. The bond has been refunded.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed for the skip bin and charges is awarded. A photograph of an over filled skip was provided. The landlord said that she had tried to contact the tenant about the items let behind but had no response and they were not valuable enough to store.

The landlord claimed for some cleaning in the handyman work but not a lot of cleaning evidence was provided. There was evidence of other repairs required and $600.00 is awarded for landlord repairs includes cleaning and cleaning up rubbish.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: the remotes for the garage and heat pump. The oven and cook top knobs were removed and 4 door stops.

The tenant was not allowed pets but there was evidence of a pet, being pet food, a feeding area and excrement in the garden. The premises also had fleas. The claim for a flea bomb is awarded.

The carpets throughout the premises were stained and marked. The landlord provided a variety of cleaning quotes but ended up paying the new property manager who organises a complete house clean. A nominal amount is awarded reflecting that the tenant has breached their obligations, but the exact loss has not been quantified.

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 walls were part wallpapered without the landlord’s consent, there were holes in the eaves from a security system and the landlords own door sensors were removed. The washing line was broken, and blinds bent.

The landlord was able to fix the washing line and remove the wallpaper. The blinds were removed, and holes filled by the landlord.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. $600.00 is awarded for handyman repairs.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

Because Jane Ching-yan Walsh, Jordan Walsh has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795860 — net $1,849.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Landlord repairs	$600.00	Landlord repairs
Heat pump remote	$103.50	Heat pump remote
Garage remote	$400.00	Garage remote
Paint for patching	$11.95	Paint for patching
Door stops	$26.32	Door stops
Rubbish removal: 3 cubic meter bin	$235.00	Rubbish removal: 3 cubic meter bin
Rubbish removal: extra weight charge	$57.00	Rubbish removal: extra weight charge
Flea bomb	$35.98	Flea bomb
Oven knobs	$20.88	Oven knobs
Cook top knobs	$73.54	Cook top knobs
Carpet Cleaning	$264.50	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,849.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,849.11

Order

Katherine Smyth must pay Jane Ching-yan Walsh and Jordan Walsh $1,849.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The premises are owned by a family trust called J and J Walsh Family Trust, and this entity is named as the landlord in the tenancy agreement. The name of the applicant is changed to reflect this.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 19 January 2024 after being terminated for rent arrears by the Tenancy Tribunal. The bond has been refunded.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed for the skip bin and charges is awarded. A photograph of an over filled skip was provided. The landlord said that she had tried to contact the tenant about the items let behind but had no response and they were not valuable enough to store.
The landlord claimed for some cleaning in the handyman work but not a lot of cleaning evidence was provided. There was evidence of other repairs required and $600.00 is awarded for landlord repairs includes cleaning and cleaning up rubbish.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: the remotes for the garage and heat pump. The oven and cook top knobs were removed and 4 door stops.
The tenant was not allowed pets but there was evidence of a pet, being pet food, a feeding area and excrement in the garden. The premises also had fleas. The claim for a flea bomb is awarded.
The carpets throughout the premises were stained and marked. The landlord provided a variety of cleaning quotes but ended up paying the new property manager who organises a complete house clean. A nominal amount is awarded reflecting that the tenant has breached their obligations, but the exact loss has not been quantified.
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 walls were part wallpapered without the landlord’s consent, there were holes in the eaves from a security system and the landlords own door sensors were removed. The washing line was broken, and blinds bent.
The landlord was able to fix the washing line and remove the wallpaper. The blinds were removed, and holes filled by the landlord.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. $600.00 is awarded for handyman repairs.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
Because Jane Ching-yan Walsh, Jordan Walsh has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795860 — Property damage at 15 Kanono Close, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795860 — Property damage at 15 Kanono Close, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

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

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

Frequently asked questions