What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4850720?

The tribunal order states: David Fa'auga must pay BRC Limited $2,317.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4850720?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $39.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $259.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door Handle & Keys: $168.19 awarded to landlord; Front Door Frame: $156.69 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Free-standing w…: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $678.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $24.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850720?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10361224-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4850720?

The tribunal order states: David Fa'auga must pay BRC Limited $2,317.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4850720?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $39.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $259.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door Handle & Keys: $168.19 awarded to landlord; Front Door Frame: $156.69 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Free-standing w…: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $678.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $24.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850720?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10361224-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 18, 15 Park Avenue, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4850720 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850720 — net $2,317.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$678.50	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries	$39.80	Light bulbs/batteries
Replace smoke alarms	$24.38	Replace smoke alarms
Lock/key replacement	$259.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Front door frame	$156.69	Repairs: Front door frame
Repairs: Bedroom door handle & keys	$168.19	Repairs: Bedroom door handle & keys
Replace furnishings: Free-standing wardrobe	$450.00	Replace furnishings: Free-standing wardrobe
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,317.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,317.44

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Natasha Ross and Mrs Andrea Ross. There was no attendance by the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos produced in evidence.

The landlord arranged to clean and tidy the premises and remove rubbish and belongings left by the tenant using what Ms Ross described as a sister company, Hutt City Paints Limited trading as both Moor Cleaning Services and Moor Building Services. The directors and shareholders of Hutt City Paints Limited are also the directors and shareholders of BRC Limited. However, the companies are separate and distinct legal entities.

In relation to the invoice for cleaning issued under the tradename Moor Cleaning Services, I have reduced the claim. This is because the invoice covers the costs of cleaning the bathroom and toilet. However, photos of those areas do not satisfy me that they were not reasonably clean and tidy.

In relation to the invoice for removal of rubbish and belongings issued under the tradename Moor Building Services, the hourly rate charged for the removal work is $65 plus GST with the overall costs totalling $1,201.75. I consider the amount claimed is excessive on the basis that it is not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for work of this nature. The Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen. The hourly rate charged by the landlord of $65 plus GST is excessive for the nature of the work and beyond the usual commercial rates. In addition, the total amount charged appears out of proportion and beyond the amount of work required based on the photo evidence. Therefore, I have reduced the amount awarded.

The tenant did not return the keys.

The landlord had to replace light bulbs and a missing smoke alarm.

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: A bedroom door handle was missing and required replacement including replacement of bedroom door keys not returned; the front door frame was split and required repair; and a free- standing wardrobe was dismantled and damaged beyond repair and required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The invoices for the repairs issued under the tradename Moor Building Services show that labour was charged at an hourly rate of $85 plus GST which Ms Ross says is a builder’s standard rate. I am not persuaded that this rate would always be justified depending on the nature and complexity of the building work required. However, I am satisfied that, overall, the invoices for replacing the bedroom handle and repairing the door frame appear reasonable. The invoice for purchasing a replacement kit set wardrobe, transporting it, and assembling it is not consistent with commercial rates the Tribunal sees for this work. A builder’s rate of $85 plus GST/hour for collecting and assembling a kit set wardrobe is out of proportion, and excessive given the level of skill required for the work. I have reduced the claim accordingly.

I have also considered 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850720 — net $2,317.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$678.50	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries	$39.80	Light bulbs/batteries
Replace smoke alarms	$24.38	Replace smoke alarms
Lock/key replacement	$259.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Front door frame	$156.69	Repairs: Front door frame
Repairs: Bedroom door handle & keys	$168.19	Repairs: Bedroom door handle & keys
Replace furnishings: Free-standing wardrobe	$450.00	Replace furnishings: Free-standing wardrobe
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,317.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,317.44

Order

David Fa'auga must pay BRC Limited $2,317.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $129.56 (3134246-011) to BRC Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Natasha Ross and Mrs Andrea Ross. There was no attendance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos produced in evidence.
The landlord arranged to clean and tidy the premises and remove rubbish and belongings left by the tenant using what Ms Ross described as a sister company, Hutt City Paints Limited trading as both Moor Cleaning Services and Moor Building Services. The directors and shareholders of Hutt City Paints Limited are also the directors and shareholders of BRC Limited. However, the companies are separate and distinct legal entities.
In relation to the invoice for cleaning issued under the tradename Moor Cleaning Services, I have reduced the claim. This is because the invoice covers the costs of cleaning the bathroom and toilet. However, photos of those areas do not satisfy me that they were not reasonably clean and tidy.
In relation to the invoice for removal of rubbish and belongings issued under the tradename Moor Building Services, the hourly rate charged for the removal work is $65 plus GST with the overall costs totalling $1,201.75. I consider the amount claimed is excessive on the basis that it is not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for work of this nature. The Tribunal is only prepared to award a reasonable amount, meaning an amount not dissimilar to other commercial costs seen. The hourly rate charged by the landlord of $65 plus GST is excessive for the nature of the work and beyond the usual commercial rates. In addition, the total amount charged appears out of proportion and beyond the amount of work required based on the photo evidence. Therefore, I have reduced the amount awarded.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and a missing smoke alarm.
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: A bedroom door handle was missing and required replacement including replacement of bedroom door keys not returned; the front door frame was split and required repair; and a free- standing wardrobe was dismantled and damaged beyond repair and required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The invoices for the repairs issued under the tradename Moor Building Services show that labour was charged at an hourly rate of $85 plus GST which Ms Ross says is a builder’s standard rate. I am not persuaded that this rate would always be justified depending on the nature and complexity of the building work required. However, I am satisfied that, overall, the invoices for replacing the bedroom handle and repairing the door frame appear reasonable. The invoice for purchasing a replacement kit set wardrobe, transporting it, and assembling it is not consistent with commercial rates the Tribunal sees for this work. A builder’s rate of $85 plus GST/hour for collecting and assembling a kit set wardrobe is out of proportion, and excessive given the level of skill required for the work. I have reduced the claim accordingly.
I have also considered 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850720 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 18, 15 Park Avenue, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850720 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 18, 15 Park Avenue, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

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

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

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions