What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4830940?

The tribunal order states: Caleb Sidney Lee Chaplow must pay Sunrise Property Management And

How much money was awarded in case 4830940?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $64.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Wall Holes: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Shades: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $74.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4830940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10722593-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4830940?

The tribunal order states: Caleb Sidney Lee Chaplow must pay Sunrise Property Management And

How much money was awarded in case 4830940?

Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $64.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Wall Holes: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Shades: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $74.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4830940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4830940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10722593-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42 Divich Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4830940 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4830940 — net $391.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$74.19	Water rates
Repairs: Wall holes	$805.00	Repairs: Wall holes
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$600.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Replace furnishings: Light shades	$172.50	Replace furnishings: Light shades
Repairs: Vinyl flooring	$172.50	Repairs: Vinyl flooring
Cleaning	$632.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$64.00	Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$391.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$391.13

Caleb Sidney Lee Chaplow must pay Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited Acting Agent For L Leong $391.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (5846471-004) to Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited Acting Agent For L Leong immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

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

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 January 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The tenant did not return the garage door remote.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: curtains and three light fittings.

The landlord claimed for installation of 13 curtains and tracks. At the beginning of the tenancy there were venetian blinds, vertical blinds and curtains. At the end of the tenancy the vertical blinds were missing but some of the venetian blinds remained. Some of the curtains were missing. The curtains did not look to be of a high quality when the tenancy commenced six years ago. It is not clear why the curtain tracks needed to be replaced.

I have reduced the amount claimed by the landlord due to not all curtains being missing, the quality of the curtains at the beginning of the tenancy, the depreciation in value of the curtains estimated to be almost five years old when the tenancy commenced, and the tracks being replaced when they did not need to be. I have awarded $600.00 for the curtains.

The landlord had claimed $345.00 for replacement of three light fittings. None of the light shades were of a high quality and the amount claimed is not supported by an invoice from a lighting shop. I consider that the claim is too high for the shades being replaced. I have therefore reduced the claim awarded to $172.50 for all three light fittings.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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: wall holes, stained vinyl, stained carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts for repairing the wall holes and the stained vinyl are proved.

The landlord claimed half the cost of replacing the carpet at the premises. The landlord had also claimed for carpet cleaning which I have awarded. At the hearing the landlord said that the carpet was not new at the beginning of the tenancy but was at least 10 years old. That means that at the end of the tenancy the carpet could have been 16 years old.

The photographs produced from the beginning of the tenancy show that the carpet was not in good condition and either had not been laid correctly or was stretched out of shape.

The photographs produced from the end of tenancy show that the carpet was heavily stained and damaged at one entranceway. No photographs were produced to show what the carpet looked like after the cleaning.

Given the age of the carpet, the condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy and the lack of photographs after the cleaning I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for half the cost of replacing the carpet. I also note that the carpet has not been replaced even though the premises have been re-tenanted and it is more than seven months since the tenancy ended. After the length of time that the carpet has been in the premises the landlord should replace it because it is at the end of its useful life.

Because Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited Acting Agent For L Leong has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4830940 — net $391.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$74.19	Water rates
Repairs: Wall holes	$805.00	Repairs: Wall holes
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$600.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Replace furnishings: Light shades	$172.50	Replace furnishings: Light shades
Repairs: Vinyl flooring	$172.50	Repairs: Vinyl flooring
Cleaning	$632.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$230.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$64.00	Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$391.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$391.13

Order

Caleb Sidney Lee Chaplow must pay Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited Acting Agent For L Leong $391.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (5846471-004) to Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited Acting Agent For L Leong immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 January 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not return the garage door remote.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: curtains and three light fittings.
The landlord claimed for installation of 13 curtains and tracks. At the beginning of the tenancy there were venetian blinds, vertical blinds and curtains. At the end of the tenancy the vertical blinds were missing but some of the venetian blinds remained. Some of the curtains were missing. The curtains did not look to be of a high quality when the tenancy commenced six years ago. It is not clear why the curtain tracks needed to be replaced.
I have reduced the amount claimed by the landlord due to not all curtains being missing, the quality of the curtains at the beginning of the tenancy, the depreciation in value of the curtains estimated to be almost five years old when the tenancy commenced, and the tracks being replaced when they did not need to be. I have awarded $600.00 for the curtains.
The landlord had claimed $345.00 for replacement of three light fittings. None of the light shades were of a high quality and the amount claimed is not supported by an invoice from a lighting shop. I consider that the claim is too high for the shades being replaced. I have therefore reduced the claim awarded to $172.50 for all three light fittings.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: wall holes, stained vinyl, stained carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts for repairing the wall holes and the stained vinyl are proved.
The landlord claimed half the cost of replacing the carpet at the premises. The landlord had also claimed for carpet cleaning which I have awarded. At the hearing the landlord said that the carpet was not new at the beginning of the tenancy but was at least 10 years old. That means that at the end of the tenancy the carpet could have been 16 years old.
The photographs produced from the beginning of the tenancy show that the carpet was not in good condition and either had not been laid correctly or was stretched out of shape.
The photographs produced from the end of tenancy show that the carpet was heavily stained and damaged at one entranceway. No photographs were produced to show what the carpet looked like after the cleaning.
Given the age of the carpet, the condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy and the lack of photographs after the cleaning I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for half the cost of replacing the carpet. I also note that the carpet has not been replaced even though the premises have been re-tenanted and it is more than seven months since the tenancy ended. After the length of time that the carpet has been in the premises the landlord should replace it because it is at the end of its useful life.
Because Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited Acting Agent For L Leong has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830940 — Property damage at 42 Divich Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4830940 — Property damage at 42 Divich Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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