What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4852200?

The tribunal order states: Peng Lu must pay Maurice Clifford Harvey $1,182.94 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4852200?

Cleaning: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting walls, skirting boards, win…: $2,012.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852200?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10546035-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4852200?

The tribunal order states: Peng Lu must pay Maurice Clifford Harvey $1,182.94 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4852200?

Cleaning: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting walls, skirting boards, win…: $2,012.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852200?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10546035-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room Suite 9, 203 Kirkbride Road, Mangere, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4852200 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852200 — net $1,182.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$950.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Painting walls, skirting boards, window sills ceilings	$2,012.50	Repairs: Painting walls, skirting boards, window sills ceilings
Net award	$1,182.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,182.94

Order

Peng Lu must pay Maurice Clifford Harvey $1,182.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$950.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Repairs: Painting walls, skirting boards, window sills ceilings $2,012.50 Total award$2,982.94 Minus Bond-$1,800.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,182.94
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6113706002) to Maurice Clifford Harvey immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 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.
The landlord provided photographs for the property at the end of the tenancy. The photos showed a cockroach infestation and a very dirty and unclean house. The walls and windowsills were black and mouldy, shower head broken off and shower base heavily stained. The floors were dirty throughout, cobwebs hanging down and oven had to be replaced as cleaning would not bring it back to a reasonable condition.
The tenant accepts that he left the place in a very poor condition.
The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning from JR Pacific Clean dated 3 November 2023 for $950.00.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for cleaning costs.

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: - The walls throughout the house were heavily marked and stained. There was mould throughout the premises on the walls, skirting, windowsills and ceiling. -The door frames, stairway and all doors had heavy paint chips and mould. -The landlord also stated that the oven and shower had to be replaced, due to the dirty condition. The landlord is not claiming for those items but asks that it be factored into the costs he is claiming for the paintwork.
I accept that the tenant has contributed to the serious deterioration of the paintwork throughout the premises. It is obvious that the tenant did not open windows to ventilate the premises nor clean.
This was one of the dirtiest properties I have seen after a tenancy has ended. The neglect of the tenant to care for the premises has been a contributing factor in its poor condition.
The landlord provided an invoice from Evolution Stoppers Ltd dated 22 November 2023 for $4,025.00 for repainting the premises upstairs.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I advised the landlord that depreciation would also have to be factored into the amount of costs I award. The property has previously been painted approximately 7 years ago. That would significantly reduce the value of the compensation I would award a landlord.
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.
However, given the tenants involvement in the condition of the property I believe a 50% award of the full cost of repainting is appropriate.
I am awarding the landlord $2012.50 towards the costs of the repainting and repairs to the premises. Bond
The bond is to be refunded by the Bond Centre, to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
Because Maurice Clifford Harvey has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4852200 — net $1,182.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$950.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Painting walls, skirting boards, window sills ceilings	$2,012.50	Repairs: Painting walls, skirting boards, window sills ceilings
Net award	$1,182.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,182.94

Order

Peng Lu must pay Maurice Clifford Harvey $1,182.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$950.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Repairs: Painting walls, skirting boards, window sills ceilings $2,012.50 Total award$2,982.94 Minus Bond-$1,800.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,182.94
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6113706002) to Maurice Clifford Harvey immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 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.
The landlord provided photographs for the property at the end of the tenancy. The photos showed a cockroach infestation and a very dirty and unclean house. The walls and windowsills were black and mouldy, shower head broken off and shower base heavily stained. The floors were dirty throughout, cobwebs hanging down and oven had to be replaced as cleaning would not bring it back to a reasonable condition.
The tenant accepts that he left the place in a very poor condition.
The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning from JR Pacific Clean dated 3 November 2023 for $950.00.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for cleaning costs.

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: - The walls throughout the house were heavily marked and stained. There was mould throughout the premises on the walls, skirting, windowsills and ceiling. -The door frames, stairway and all doors had heavy paint chips and mould. -The landlord also stated that the oven and shower had to be replaced, due to the dirty condition. The landlord is not claiming for those items but asks that it be factored into the costs he is claiming for the paintwork.
I accept that the tenant has contributed to the serious deterioration of the paintwork throughout the premises. It is obvious that the tenant did not open windows to ventilate the premises nor clean.
This was one of the dirtiest properties I have seen after a tenancy has ended. The neglect of the tenant to care for the premises has been a contributing factor in its poor condition.
The landlord provided an invoice from Evolution Stoppers Ltd dated 22 November 2023 for $4,025.00 for repainting the premises upstairs.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I advised the landlord that depreciation would also have to be factored into the amount of costs I award. The property has previously been painted approximately 7 years ago. That would significantly reduce the value of the compensation I would award a landlord.
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.
However, given the tenants involvement in the condition of the property I believe a 50% award of the full cost of repainting is appropriate.
I am awarding the landlord $2012.50 towards the costs of the repainting and repairs to the premises. Bond
The bond is to be refunded by the Bond Centre, to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
Because Maurice Clifford Harvey has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852200 — Property damage at Room Suite 9, 203 Kirkbride Road, Mangere, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852200 — Property damage at Room Suite 9, 203 Kirkbride Road, Mangere, Auckland

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

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

Frequently asked questions