What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851761?

The tribunal order states: Malcolm Woolley must pay Palmerston North City Council $6,335.29

How much money was awarded in case 4851761?

Rubbish Removal: $1,360.38 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $555.60 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall, Glass In Door: $655.50 awarded to landlord; Toilet: $879.37 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and bl…: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851761?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10303443-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851761?

The tribunal order states: Malcolm Woolley must pay Palmerston North City Council $6,335.29

How much money was awarded in case 4851761?

Rubbish Removal: $1,360.38 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $555.60 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall, Glass In Door: $655.50 awarded to landlord; Toilet: $879.37 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and bl…: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851761?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10303443-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

42 Cardrona Close, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4851761 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4851761 — net $6,335.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$555.60	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$1,360.38	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Repairs: bathroom wall, glass in door	$655.50	Repairs: bathroom wall, glass in door
Repairs: replacement of toilet	$879.37	Repairs: replacement of toilet
Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds	$2,200.00	Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$6,335.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,335.29

Order

Malcolm Woolley must pay Palmerston North City Council $6,335.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $336.00 (6427742-001) to Palmerston North City Council immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Thomas and Mr McDermott. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The application was made more than 60 days after the end of the tenancy and so the tenancy address could not be used as the address for service. The landlord provided an address that the tenant had moved to. Ms Thomas said that she had become aware of the address through social support agencies involved with the tenant. The Ministry of Social Development had been instrumental in negotiating for the tenant to stay a couple of weeks longer than the termination date of 20 December and had moved him to the new address, which had been provided to the Tribunal when the application was filed.
Ms Thomas produced a copy of an email from Manawatu Tenancy Services to PNCC regarding the landlord’s application, indicating that he was aware of it. The representative was seeking photos of the property in order to advise his client.
I am satisfied that the tenant has had notice of the landlord’s claim and date of hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, it was his inability to do so that had led to the tenancy being terminated by the Tribunal in December last year.
The landlord produced photographs showing the premises is a very poor state. Clothes and food were mingled on the floor. The bathroom walls had fallen away beside the toilet and there was excrement spread and piled on top of the rim of the toilet by the cistern. There were empty uncleaned egg shells lining the window sill. The landlord submitted an invoice for cleaning and rubbish removal for $1,360.38. This included bio hazzard and tip fees.
The tenant did not return the keys and continued to visit the property. The landlord submitted invoices for the purchase of a double barrel locks and fitting, totalling $555.60.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed compensation for damage to the property.
The landlord also replaced the carpet because of the build-up of food and grime around the chair the tenant had used. The carpet had been new at the start of the tenancy in October 2021.
The damage was more than fair wear and tear
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.
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: [list items]. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There was a broken glass door.
The walls around the toilet were broken with parts missing. Ms Thomas believed they had deteriorated because of urine. The fire wall required replacement.
An invoice for the repair of these two items was submitted.
Because of the state of the toilet, it was decided it needed to be replaced. An invoice for replacement and labour was submitted.
I accept that in order to provide the premises in a sanitary condition, it was appropriate to replace the toilet.
The curtains all required replacement because the tenant had smoked heavily in the premises, contrary to the tenancy agreement. Photos showed that the linings of the curtains were a dark yellow. I am satisfied that was as a result of nicotine staining.
I am satisfied that this was intentional damage in the sense that this was not damage resulting from one accident. There was a repeated and sustained pattern of behaviour and the tenant would have known that it was his conduct that was causing the gradual damage.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord had the benefit of the curtains and carpet for two years. They were new at the start of the tenancy. The IRD depreciation rates are 17% for a straight line depreciation and $25% on a diminishing value.
The landlord did not submit invoices for the original purchases, but the replacement cost of the window treatments was $2,839.74 and $1,511.97. Applying the IRD depreciation rates, the book value diminishes to nothing over an 8 year period. I consider the depreciation rates are a useful guide, but I accept that the actual life of furnishings is often longer than the book value, which is used to spread tax liability over a period of years.
I have deducted a small amount of depreciation, from each of these items and order $2,200 for the curtains and blinds, and $1,000 for the carpet, which I find is fair and reasonable compensation.
Because Palmerston North City Council has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4851761 — net $6,335.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$555.60	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$1,360.38	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Repairs: bathroom wall, glass in door	$655.50	Repairs: bathroom wall, glass in door
Repairs: replacement of toilet	$879.37	Repairs: replacement of toilet
Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds	$2,200.00	Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,000.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$6,335.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,335.29

Order

Malcolm Woolley must pay Palmerston North City Council $6,335.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $336.00 (6427742-001) to Palmerston North City Council immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Thomas and Mr McDermott. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The application was made more than 60 days after the end of the tenancy and so the tenancy address could not be used as the address for service. The landlord provided an address that the tenant had moved to. Ms Thomas said that she had become aware of the address through social support agencies involved with the tenant. The Ministry of Social Development had been instrumental in negotiating for the tenant to stay a couple of weeks longer than the termination date of 20 December and had moved him to the new address, which had been provided to the Tribunal when the application was filed.
Ms Thomas produced a copy of an email from Manawatu Tenancy Services to PNCC regarding the landlord’s application, indicating that he was aware of it. The representative was seeking photos of the property in order to advise his client.
I am satisfied that the tenant has had notice of the landlord’s claim and date of hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, it was his inability to do so that had led to the tenancy being terminated by the Tribunal in December last year.
The landlord produced photographs showing the premises is a very poor state. Clothes and food were mingled on the floor. The bathroom walls had fallen away beside the toilet and there was excrement spread and piled on top of the rim of the toilet by the cistern. There were empty uncleaned egg shells lining the window sill. The landlord submitted an invoice for cleaning and rubbish removal for $1,360.38. This included bio hazzard and tip fees.
The tenant did not return the keys and continued to visit the property. The landlord submitted invoices for the purchase of a double barrel locks and fitting, totalling $555.60.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed compensation for damage to the property.
The landlord also replaced the carpet because of the build-up of food and grime around the chair the tenant had used. The carpet had been new at the start of the tenancy in October 2021.
The damage was more than fair wear and tear
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.
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: [list items]. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There was a broken glass door.
The walls around the toilet were broken with parts missing. Ms Thomas believed they had deteriorated because of urine. The fire wall required replacement.
An invoice for the repair of these two items was submitted.
Because of the state of the toilet, it was decided it needed to be replaced. An invoice for replacement and labour was submitted.
I accept that in order to provide the premises in a sanitary condition, it was appropriate to replace the toilet.
The curtains all required replacement because the tenant had smoked heavily in the premises, contrary to the tenancy agreement. Photos showed that the linings of the curtains were a dark yellow. I am satisfied that was as a result of nicotine staining.
I am satisfied that this was intentional damage in the sense that this was not damage resulting from one accident. There was a repeated and sustained pattern of behaviour and the tenant would have known that it was his conduct that was causing the gradual damage.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord had the benefit of the curtains and carpet for two years. They were new at the start of the tenancy. The IRD depreciation rates are 17% for a straight line depreciation and $25% on a diminishing value.
The landlord did not submit invoices for the original purchases, but the replacement cost of the window treatments was $2,839.74 and $1,511.97. Applying the IRD depreciation rates, the book value diminishes to nothing over an 8 year period. I consider the depreciation rates are a useful guide, but I accept that the actual life of furnishings is often longer than the book value, which is used to spread tax liability over a period of years.
I have deducted a small amount of depreciation, from each of these items and order $2,200 for the curtains and blinds, and $1,000 for the carpet, which I find is fair and reasonable compensation.
Because Palmerston North City Council has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851761 — Property damage at 42 Cardrona Close, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851761 — Property damage at 42 Cardrona Close, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions