What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4804307?

The tribunal order states: Courtney Jane McAlister and Ashleigh Findlay must pay Ling Wang $3,370.00

How much money was awarded in case 4804307?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804307?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804307?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10183085-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4804307?

The tribunal order states: Courtney Jane McAlister and Ashleigh Findlay must pay Ling Wang $3,370.00

How much money was awarded in case 4804307?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804307?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804307?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10183085-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Streamside Terrace, Kaiapoi, Kaiapoi 7630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4804307 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804307 — net $3,370.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,550.00	Rent arrears
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Hob (Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Hob (Insurance excess
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Dishwasher (Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Dishwasher (Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Carpet (Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet (Insurance excess
Repairs: Wall damage (estimate	$500.00	Repairs: Wall damage (estimate
Lock/key replacement: Garage door opener	$80.00	Lock/key replacement: Garage door opener
Net award	$3,370.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,370.00

Order

Courtney Jane McAlister and Ashleigh Findlay must pay Ling Wang $3,370.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6434786-006) to Ling Wang immediately.
All other claims are withdrawn or dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Goulding, the landlord’s husband, also attended. Ms Wu attended as interpreter for Ms Wang.
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 landlord also claimed exemplary damages for additional tenants and unauthorised dogs.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for failure to appoint an agent and breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 February 2024.
The landlord provided rent records showing the rent arrears and the tenants accepted they were liable for the arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices,
The tenant did not return one garage door remote. The tenants acknowledged that this remote had been taken in error and they had yet to locate it.
The landlord claimed $100 as compensation for this remote. No evidence was supplied to support the amount claimed.
The amount awarded has been reduced to $80.00 to reflect the likely replacement cost.
The amount ordered is proved. Loss of rent
The landlord claimed for six weeks loss of rent.
The Tribunal seldom awards loss of rent to landlords and it is not appropriate to do so in this case.
The property is now tenanted and most of the repairs have still not been completed. There is no evidence that it could not have been tenanted earlier and the tenants provided evidence that it had been advertised two weeks after their tenancy ended.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The tenants accepted liability for the damaged kitchen hob and the damage to the entryway wall.
The landlord claimed $1,000.00 for the damage to the entry way wall. There was no evidence provided to support the amount claimed. The amount awarded has been reduced to reflect the likely cost of the repair.
The dishwasher was also damaged during the tenancy. The tenant considered that they had used the dishwasher in the normal way and the damage was the result of fair wear and tear.
Given that the property was brand new when the tenants moved in, I do not consider that this damage to a reputable brand of dishwasher can be considered fair wear and tear.
The landlord claimed for damage to carpet in the living room. Some stains were able to be removed with professional cleaning, but a matted/melted area was unable to be remedied.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord also claimed for a chip in the kitchen bench. The chip was located the sink edge and appears to be quite small.
Although the landlord is understandably upset by this damage and the cost to repair may be high, it is my view that this damage likely occurred during normal use of the property and is fair wear and tear and this claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for repairs to two toilet seats was withdrawn at the hearing.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Courtney Jane McAlister and Ashleigh Findlay claim the landlord’s husband has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under section 38(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 under section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants provided copies of text and email correspondence between them and the landlords. Most of this correspondence is pleasant in tone on both sides. The tenants at one stage are unable to pay weekly rent and the landlord’s response is to try to find solutions and to make suggestions.
There is nothing in the evidence provided to the Tribunal that proves harassment and I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in this regard so no exemplary damages can or should be awarded.
The tenants claim the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand under section 16A(1) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant believed the landlord was out of New Zealand for more than 21 days during the tenancy. There was no evidence provided to support this.
The landlord accepted that they had been away from New Zealand on one occasion for over 21 days. The landlord was unaware of the requirement to appoint an agent but, in any case, had taken a friend to the property at the inspection prior to their departure and introduced the friend to the tenants. The friend had provided her number as a contract, should that be required, while the landlords were away.
The tenant acknowledged this but did not feel that this amounted to compliance with the Act. They said they had called the number provided and it didn’t seem to be an active number.
I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to show that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in this regard and no exemplary damages can or should be awarded.
Ling Wang claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded under section 40(3) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00 under section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of two people may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The tenant allowed a sibling to stay at the property for longer than the landlord had approved. Even without the landlord’s consent, it would seem reasonable that a tenant may have a house guest for a few months. The sibling did not “ordinarily reside” at the property so there was no breach.
No exemplary damages can or should flow from this.
The landlord also considered the tenant in breach as there was a suggestion from a neighbour that the tenants had dogs living at the property in breach of the tenancy agreement.
There was no evidence provided to support this and the landlords had never personally seen dogs or any signs that dogs lived at the property.
No breach is proven, and no exemplary damages can or should be awarded in this regard.
As neither party has wholly succeeded with their claim filing fees fall where they lie.
Both parties requested suppression but as neither has been substantially successful, no suppression orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804307 — net $3,370.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,550.00	Rent arrears
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Hob (Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Hob (Insurance excess
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Dishwasher (Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Dishwasher (Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Carpet (Insurance excess	$1,200.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet (Insurance excess
Repairs: Wall damage (estimate	$500.00	Repairs: Wall damage (estimate
Lock/key replacement: Garage door opener	$80.00	Lock/key replacement: Garage door opener
Net award	$3,370.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,370.00

Order

Courtney Jane McAlister and Ashleigh Findlay must pay Ling Wang $3,370.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6434786-006) to Ling Wang immediately.
All other claims are withdrawn or dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Goulding, the landlord’s husband, also attended. Ms Wu attended as interpreter for Ms Wang.
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 landlord also claimed exemplary damages for additional tenants and unauthorised dogs.
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for failure to appoint an agent and breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 15 February 2024.
The landlord provided rent records showing the rent arrears and the tenants accepted they were liable for the arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices,
The tenant did not return one garage door remote. The tenants acknowledged that this remote had been taken in error and they had yet to locate it.
The landlord claimed $100 as compensation for this remote. No evidence was supplied to support the amount claimed.
The amount awarded has been reduced to $80.00 to reflect the likely replacement cost.
The amount ordered is proved. Loss of rent
The landlord claimed for six weeks loss of rent.
The Tribunal seldom awards loss of rent to landlords and it is not appropriate to do so in this case.
The property is now tenanted and most of the repairs have still not been completed. There is no evidence that it could not have been tenanted earlier and the tenants provided evidence that it had been advertised two weeks after their tenancy ended.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The tenants accepted liability for the damaged kitchen hob and the damage to the entryway wall.
The landlord claimed $1,000.00 for the damage to the entry way wall. There was no evidence provided to support the amount claimed. The amount awarded has been reduced to reflect the likely cost of the repair.
The dishwasher was also damaged during the tenancy. The tenant considered that they had used the dishwasher in the normal way and the damage was the result of fair wear and tear.
Given that the property was brand new when the tenants moved in, I do not consider that this damage to a reputable brand of dishwasher can be considered fair wear and tear.
The landlord claimed for damage to carpet in the living room. Some stains were able to be removed with professional cleaning, but a matted/melted area was unable to be remedied.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord also claimed for a chip in the kitchen bench. The chip was located the sink edge and appears to be quite small.
Although the landlord is understandably upset by this damage and the cost to repair may be high, it is my view that this damage likely occurred during normal use of the property and is fair wear and tear and this claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for repairs to two toilet seats was withdrawn at the hearing.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Courtney Jane McAlister and Ashleigh Findlay claim the landlord’s husband has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under section 38(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 under section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants provided copies of text and email correspondence between them and the landlords. Most of this correspondence is pleasant in tone on both sides. The tenants at one stage are unable to pay weekly rent and the landlord’s response is to try to find solutions and to make suggestions.
There is nothing in the evidence provided to the Tribunal that proves harassment and I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in this regard so no exemplary damages can or should be awarded.
The tenants claim the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand under section 16A(1) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant believed the landlord was out of New Zealand for more than 21 days during the tenancy. There was no evidence provided to support this.
The landlord accepted that they had been away from New Zealand on one occasion for over 21 days. The landlord was unaware of the requirement to appoint an agent but, in any case, had taken a friend to the property at the inspection prior to their departure and introduced the friend to the tenants. The friend had provided her number as a contract, should that be required, while the landlords were away.
The tenant acknowledged this but did not feel that this amounted to compliance with the Act. They said they had called the number provided and it didn’t seem to be an active number.
I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to show that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in this regard and no exemplary damages can or should be awarded.
Ling Wang claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded under section 40(3) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00 under section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of two people may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The tenant allowed a sibling to stay at the property for longer than the landlord had approved. Even without the landlord’s consent, it would seem reasonable that a tenant may have a house guest for a few months. The sibling did not “ordinarily reside” at the property so there was no breach.
No exemplary damages can or should flow from this.
The landlord also considered the tenant in breach as there was a suggestion from a neighbour that the tenants had dogs living at the property in breach of the tenancy agreement.
There was no evidence provided to support this and the landlords had never personally seen dogs or any signs that dogs lived at the property.
No breach is proven, and no exemplary damages can or should be awarded in this regard.
As neither party has wholly succeeded with their claim filing fees fall where they lie.
Both parties requested suppression but as neither has been substantially successful, no suppression orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804307 — Property damage at 43 Streamside Terrace, Kaiapoi, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804307 — Property damage at 43 Streamside Terrace, Kaiapoi, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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