What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815457?

The tribunal order states: Ephraim W T Kelly and Candace Brown must pay CLP Holdings Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4815457?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,501.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven: $792.35 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $475.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815457?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10497271-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815457?

The tribunal order states: Ephraim W T Kelly and Candace Brown must pay CLP Holdings Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4815457?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,501.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven: $792.35 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $475.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815457?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10497271-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 48 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4815457 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4815457 — net $5,789.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$475.15		Rubbish removal
Repairs to walls, doors, exterior	$5,501.60		Repairs to walls, doors, exterior
Replace furnishings: oven	$792.35		Replace furnishings: oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less bond already refunded to landlord		$1,000.00	Less bond already refunded to landlord
Total award	$6,789.54	$1,000.00
Net award	$5,789.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,789.54

Order

Ephraim W T Kelly and Candace Brown must pay CLP Holdings Limited $5,789.54 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 25 June 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ran from 5 September 2019 to 20 October 2023 with a weekly rent of $655.00.
At the hearing, the tenant sought an adjournment on the basis that notice of hearing was only given on 17 June 2024, giving insufficient time to file a cross- application. The tenant said there were issues with outgoings and the condition of the property, which was mouldy and cold. No evidence was presented to raise a prima facie case.
The landlord said a healthy homes report showed that the premises were compliant. The tenancy ended on 20 October 2023 and the landlord’s application was filed on 28 February 2024. I considered that the tenant had time to file her own application and is still able to do so. I declined to adjourn and heard the landlord’s application.

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.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The tenant said she left furniture and other items outside for people in the neighbourhood to collect. The obligation on tenants is to remove or arrange for the removal of rubbish. Leaving belongings outside does not satisfy this obligation in my view.
The landlord’s photographs do not show a great deal of rubbish. The landlord claimed 4 hours at $65.00 per hour for the removal of rubbish ($260.00) plus transfer station fees which, so far as I can tell (because the landlord did not provide an itemised summary of the expenses) total $215.18. This appears reasonable based on what can be seen in the photographs and given that some of the rubbish removal costs were incurred disposing of damaged internal doors during repairs. I award rubbish removal costs in the sum of $475.18.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $655.00. I was told the insurance excess was $5,000.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
There was widespread damage to walls and doors inside the property. The majority of the landlord’s photographs seem to have been taken after repairs had started: they show multiple plaster marks on the walls at all heights, apparently where dents had been covered over. The landlord said the damage was worst in the hall and dining area. There were also photographs showing concentrated areas of marks and writing on the walls.
There were some bigger holes in the walls, from about 10cm in diameter to about 30cm in diameter (interpreting the landlord’s hand gestures at the hearing). These holes would have taken considerable force. The lounge and hallway had several large holes.
There was damage to the external cladding of the premises in several locations, including a corner of the exterior near an outside chattel (likely an air- conditioning unit). The landlord’s ingoing photographs show the exterior cladding in good condition.
The landlord said the property was a new build which had been moved onto the site before the tenancy started in September 2019 and was fully code compliant. It follows that the premises were newly renovated.
In the application form the landlord claimed $15,982.96. The landlord provided invoices from a building refurbishment company which recorded 109 hours of work at the premises over 7 weeks relating to internal and external repairs and rubbish removal. The total labour cost claimed was $7,400.00. There are also materials invoices totalling $2,769.33. I have not included rubbish removal costs ($215.18) and replacement window latches ($752.10) in this figure. The rubbish removal costs have been dealt with above and, while there is an almost illegible invoice for window catches and stays, the photographs do not show any broken window latches. The total claim for repairs is therefore $10,169.33.
The tenant said she was concerned the landlord was charging her to renovate the landlord’s house for sale (the reason given in the landlord’s termination notice was that the property was to be put on the market). The claim does seem high, although objectively the cost of repairs to the interior is not inconsistent with the damage visible in the photographs.
I note that the invoices provided show the builder spent 5 hours water blasting the exterior, including trying unsuccessfully to remove writing on the exterior wall. The exterior cladding then had to be repaired and the exterior was painted.
It is unclear exactly what the cost of repairs and painting to the exterior was because the invoices are not very itemised. In my view, water blasting the exterior of the property is normally part of a landlord’s maintenance obligation, and if the water blasting was intended to remove writing, it would have been apparent quite quickly if it was not working. It also seems that the tenant is being asked to pay for a complete repaint of the exterior when the external damage was not widespread.
Given the difficulties caused by the lack of itemising in the invoices and the absence of a summary showing how the materials receipts relate to any particular aspect of the repairs, it is necessary to take a summary approach to the compensation award. I deduct $1,000.00 to reflect the fact that the claim for external work included maintenance.
The internal walls were 4 years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is to be returned to the position they would have been in if the tenant had not breached their obligations, so it is necessary to allow for depreciation. Adopting a 10-year useful economic life for the walls, I award 60% of the repair costs, an award of $5,501.60 less the bond (already refunded to the landlord) of $1,000.00.
The oven was replaced at a cost of $1,584.70. There is a photograph showing the controls had been removed. Other photographs are of poor quality, but suggest the oven was very dirty inside. The oven too would have depreciated. Adopting a 8-year economic useful life, I award $792.35 (50%).
The landlord claimed for replacement carpet and flooring throughout the property. The landlord said he had provided photographs of the flooring, but the photographs on the file predominantly show damaged walls and doors. The only photograph of the flooring I can find is too blurry to be useful. Other photographs show small areas of carpet and flooring but do not show obvious damage. I decline to award carpet replacement costs on the evidence provided ($3,641.82) although I have awarded the cost of carpet cleaning (there was a receipt for $208.00 included in the material costs).
The tenant said there was some staining to the carpets in the lounge and bedroom and a bedroom door was damaged, but she was shocked by the landlord’s photographs and said the property was not left in that condition. She suggested the property was broken into and vandalised after she left on 17 October 2023. The tenant said the property was left unlocked with the key on the bench.
The landlord said he found the property secured a few days later, with no sign of forced entry. I am not satisfied on the available evidence that the property was damaged by unknown third parties. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The extent of the damage internally suggests that it was caused deliberately or at least by turning a blind eye to the repeated occurrence of damage over time. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. The landlord is awarded the filing fee.
The landlord requested suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in terms of the amount awarded. I decline to grant suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4815457 — net $5,789.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$475.15		Rubbish removal
Repairs to walls, doors, exterior	$5,501.60		Repairs to walls, doors, exterior
Replace furnishings: oven	$792.35		Replace furnishings: oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less bond already refunded to landlord		$1,000.00	Less bond already refunded to landlord
Total award	$6,789.54	$1,000.00
Net award	$5,789.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,789.54

Order

Ephraim W T Kelly and Candace Brown must pay CLP Holdings Limited $5,789.54 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 25 June 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ran from 5 September 2019 to 20 October 2023 with a weekly rent of $655.00.
At the hearing, the tenant sought an adjournment on the basis that notice of hearing was only given on 17 June 2024, giving insufficient time to file a cross- application. The tenant said there were issues with outgoings and the condition of the property, which was mouldy and cold. No evidence was presented to raise a prima facie case.
The landlord said a healthy homes report showed that the premises were compliant. The tenancy ended on 20 October 2023 and the landlord’s application was filed on 28 February 2024. I considered that the tenant had time to file her own application and is still able to do so. I declined to adjourn and heard the landlord’s application.

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.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The tenant said she left furniture and other items outside for people in the neighbourhood to collect. The obligation on tenants is to remove or arrange for the removal of rubbish. Leaving belongings outside does not satisfy this obligation in my view.
The landlord’s photographs do not show a great deal of rubbish. The landlord claimed 4 hours at $65.00 per hour for the removal of rubbish ($260.00) plus transfer station fees which, so far as I can tell (because the landlord did not provide an itemised summary of the expenses) total $215.18. This appears reasonable based on what can be seen in the photographs and given that some of the rubbish removal costs were incurred disposing of damaged internal doors during repairs. I award rubbish removal costs in the sum of $475.18.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $655.00. I was told the insurance excess was $5,000.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
There was widespread damage to walls and doors inside the property. The majority of the landlord’s photographs seem to have been taken after repairs had started: they show multiple plaster marks on the walls at all heights, apparently where dents had been covered over. The landlord said the damage was worst in the hall and dining area. There were also photographs showing concentrated areas of marks and writing on the walls.
There were some bigger holes in the walls, from about 10cm in diameter to about 30cm in diameter (interpreting the landlord’s hand gestures at the hearing). These holes would have taken considerable force. The lounge and hallway had several large holes.
There was damage to the external cladding of the premises in several locations, including a corner of the exterior near an outside chattel (likely an air- conditioning unit). The landlord’s ingoing photographs show the exterior cladding in good condition.
The landlord said the property was a new build which had been moved onto the site before the tenancy started in September 2019 and was fully code compliant. It follows that the premises were newly renovated.
In the application form the landlord claimed $15,982.96. The landlord provided invoices from a building refurbishment company which recorded 109 hours of work at the premises over 7 weeks relating to internal and external repairs and rubbish removal. The total labour cost claimed was $7,400.00. There are also materials invoices totalling $2,769.33. I have not included rubbish removal costs ($215.18) and replacement window latches ($752.10) in this figure. The rubbish removal costs have been dealt with above and, while there is an almost illegible invoice for window catches and stays, the photographs do not show any broken window latches. The total claim for repairs is therefore $10,169.33.
The tenant said she was concerned the landlord was charging her to renovate the landlord’s house for sale (the reason given in the landlord’s termination notice was that the property was to be put on the market). The claim does seem high, although objectively the cost of repairs to the interior is not inconsistent with the damage visible in the photographs.
I note that the invoices provided show the builder spent 5 hours water blasting the exterior, including trying unsuccessfully to remove writing on the exterior wall. The exterior cladding then had to be repaired and the exterior was painted.
It is unclear exactly what the cost of repairs and painting to the exterior was because the invoices are not very itemised. In my view, water blasting the exterior of the property is normally part of a landlord’s maintenance obligation, and if the water blasting was intended to remove writing, it would have been apparent quite quickly if it was not working. It also seems that the tenant is being asked to pay for a complete repaint of the exterior when the external damage was not widespread.
Given the difficulties caused by the lack of itemising in the invoices and the absence of a summary showing how the materials receipts relate to any particular aspect of the repairs, it is necessary to take a summary approach to the compensation award. I deduct $1,000.00 to reflect the fact that the claim for external work included maintenance.
The internal walls were 4 years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is to be returned to the position they would have been in if the tenant had not breached their obligations, so it is necessary to allow for depreciation. Adopting a 10-year useful economic life for the walls, I award 60% of the repair costs, an award of $5,501.60 less the bond (already refunded to the landlord) of $1,000.00.
The oven was replaced at a cost of $1,584.70. There is a photograph showing the controls had been removed. Other photographs are of poor quality, but suggest the oven was very dirty inside. The oven too would have depreciated. Adopting a 8-year economic useful life, I award $792.35 (50%).
The landlord claimed for replacement carpet and flooring throughout the property. The landlord said he had provided photographs of the flooring, but the photographs on the file predominantly show damaged walls and doors. The only photograph of the flooring I can find is too blurry to be useful. Other photographs show small areas of carpet and flooring but do not show obvious damage. I decline to award carpet replacement costs on the evidence provided ($3,641.82) although I have awarded the cost of carpet cleaning (there was a receipt for $208.00 included in the material costs).
The tenant said there was some staining to the carpets in the lounge and bedroom and a bedroom door was damaged, but she was shocked by the landlord’s photographs and said the property was not left in that condition. She suggested the property was broken into and vandalised after she left on 17 October 2023. The tenant said the property was left unlocked with the key on the bench.
The landlord said he found the property secured a few days later, with no sign of forced entry. I am not satisfied on the available evidence that the property was damaged by unknown third parties. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The extent of the damage internally suggests that it was caused deliberately or at least by turning a blind eye to the repeated occurrence of damage over time. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. The landlord is awarded the filing fee.
The landlord requested suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in terms of the amount awarded. I decline to grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815457 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 48 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815457 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 48 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

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

Key findings

Property management

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

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions