What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4876844?

The tribunal order states: Alaina (aka Lainey) Bishop must pay Sandeep Ratansi Mavani $6,355.44

How much money was awarded in case 4876844?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $990.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4876844?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4876844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10639667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4876844?

The tribunal order states: Alaina (aka Lainey) Bishop must pay Sandeep Ratansi Mavani $6,355.44

How much money was awarded in case 4876844?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $990.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4876844?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4876844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10639667-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Regina Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4876844 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4876844 — net $6,355.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$990.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$5,345.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,355.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,355.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4876844 — net $6,355.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$990.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs	$5,345.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,355.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,355.44

Order

Alaina (aka Lainey) Bishop must pay Sandeep Ratansi Mavani $6,355.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.
The landlord is claiming $39,980.75 in compensation for rubbish removal and damage that he claims that the tenant has done to the property.
The parties have been previous parties to a Tribunal hearing TT 4774997 and 4783538, in an order dated 19 April 2024 the Tribunal noted that the tenancy had terminated and granted possession back to the landlord as at that date (19 April 2024). The Tribunal also dismissed the tenant’s claims for failure to maintain as the tenant had not meet the evidential burden.
The relevant findings of the Adjudicator in those proceedings as they relate to this claim are: Both parties accept at the start of the tenancy the property was in good condition. The Tribunal has been provided with photographs of the property prior to the start of the tenancy and it shows a lovely, maintained house and gardens. 1 At the start of the tenancy neither the landlord nor the tenant believed there were any issues with the property. It is clear there was no mould or rotting bathroom floorboards or deck evident at the start of the tenancy. 2 The pre let photographs and report show a home in good condition. The inspection reports from June 2023 show a home in poor condition, with rubbish around the property, and in untidy condition with overgrown lawns and gardens. 3 I cannot reconcile the differences in the condition of the property in 2021 and the decline in 2023. I do however accept that the landlord has carried out repairs and maintenance over the term of the tenancy. When the problems arose between the parties, the situation became very hostile and no fruitful interaction or cooperation was possible. I do not find that the landlord has failed to maintain the property. 4 The state of the property 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 landlord provided me with photographs he said he took when he retook possession of the property on the 24 April 2024. I was also given a copy of the video taken by Ms Wine when she accompanied the landlord into the property (along with the Police) on that date. The photographs and the video show a property that has been left in a very dirty state, and with the tenants belongs still strewn around the property.
The tenant disputes that the video and the photographs show the condition of the property at the time that she left, she says that she had packed up all her belongings into black rubbish sacks and that they were ready to move. The tenant says that someone else must have entered the property before the landlord and thrown her items around. The tenant also says that the landlord did not give her sufficient time to clean or remove her belongings and that when she turned up to 1 TT 4783538/4774997, 19 April 2024 paragraph 5 2 TT 4783538/4774997, 19 April 2024 paragraph 7 3 TT 4783538/4774997, 19 April 2024 paragraph 46 4 TT 4783538/4774997, 19 April 2024 paragraph 50-52 do so on the 27 April, the landlord had already disposed of her belongings into skip bins.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the property on the date of termination in a clean and tidy state and to remove her belongings. The tenant accepted at the hearing on the 19 April that she had left the property and began a new tenancy on the 12 March and that she was going back to the property to pick up her belongings. The Tribunal found that the tenancy had ended by the 19 April and awarded possession back to the landlord. I consider that the tenant had ample time to clean the property and remove her belongings. It was more than a month after she had left the property, by the date of the hearing on the 19 April. The tenant’s belongings should have been all out by that time.
The landlord hired two skip bins and has provided me with photographs showing the tenants belonging and rubbish in those skip bins. I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to cost of the skip bins. The landlord did not seek any further cost for cleaning or the labour of removing the rubbish which he completed with the neighbour.
The amounts ordered is 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.
I am satisfied that the following damage was done by the tenant during the tenancy and was more than wear and tear: a) Holes in the entryway. The tenant says that this hole occurred because of fair wear and tear and that the gib was wet from leaks. I disagree, it is a large hole and the gib looks dry. b) Cracked or broken windows: I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the broken window in the master bedroom. The tenant says that this window was broken from a neighbour Ms Wine, throwing a stone through the window. The tenant did not give me any evidence that would corroborate her story, such as a notification to the landlord, or a report to the Police. In the absence of such evidence, I find the tenant liable. The tenant also says that the landlord’s lawnmower man broke a window in the bathroom when the mowed the lawn on the first occasion. The tenant admits that she taped the window up. Again, the tenant did not provide any evidence that would support her version of how this window became broken. I find the tenant liable for this damage. I am also satisfied that the tenant is liable for the broken window in the entry. c) Carpet. The tenant accepted that the carpet was heavily stained. She said that she planned on having it professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. Again, despite saying this, she took no steps to do that. The photographs of the carpet throughout the premises show carpet that is extensively stained. I consider that the extent of the staining meant that the carpet required replacement. d) Damage to walls and painting. The photographs of the property show multiple holes, scrapes and damage to walls, stickers on walls and writing on the walls. The tenant said that these should have been easily removed and did not necessitate repainting. I disagree the nature and extent of the damage to the paintwork in the lounge and bedrooms necessitates repainting of those walls. e) Damage to the exterior- fibrolite sheets covering the base of the house cracked and broken and a hole in the shed. f) Pantry doors- The tenant says these fell off because they were heavy. I do not consider that pantry doors just fall off. The tenant did not provide any evidence such as picture of the hinges that show me that the doors fell off because of a defect in the doors or age. g) Damage to internal doors. h) Damage to light fittings in the family room.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I record that I do not consider the tenant liable for the following damage and the reasons for this finding. a) The holes in the deck which I consider having occurred due to the age of the deck not from the tenants use of the deck. b) Holes in the walls that were caused by a lack of doorstops in the property. c) The window in the tenant’s daughter’s bedroom which appears to have fallen out due to the age and condition of the window. d) The damage to the bathroom and toilet floors and to the bathroom/ toilet which I consider more than likely arose from a leak in the toilet wall/ floor and a leak to the taps. I say that because that is the evidence that was given by the landlord’s own builder at today’s hearing. e) The rangehood. I consider that this was damaged as a result of the way that it was affixed to the wall. The tenant says that it fell off the wall. This was supported by evidence given by Ms Willoughby who the tenant told about the incident when it occurred.

What amount of compensation should be awarded?

The landlord has renovated his property, he has pulled out the kitchen, bathroom and toilet, replaced the toilet and bathroom walls and flooring. Much of what is in his quote from Adorable Homes Limited, whom I heard from today relates to his ‘renovation’ of the property rather than remedying the damage caused by the tenant.
In addition, the landlord has successfully claimed $12,791.70 by his insurance company for the damage he says was caused by the tenant. He has paid 5 excesses at $750 per room = $3500.00 The insurance covered the carpet throughout the property, repair to the hole in the lounge, a repair to a hole in the wall in the family room, repairing holes in the master bedroom, reglazing the windows in the master bedroom. Some of the items claimed relate to damage caused by the tenant some do not.
I am satisfied that the tenant should pay the following amounts for the damage: $3500.00 excess paid by the landlord- this takes into account some of the hole in the walls, some paint work, the stained carpet and the cracked/ broken windows. $345.00 for the hole in the back foyer. $500.00 for other remaining damage $1000.00 for painting A total of $5345.00 is awarded.
In awarding compensation, I have also taken into account the following: a. that the landlord terminated the tenancy because he wished to extensively renovate the property. b. That the landlord confirmed to me today that he was replacing the kitchen and bathroom and planned to do all of the work in the Adorable Homes Limited quote, much of that quote does not relate to the damage caused by the tenant, and if I awarded that amount then the landlord would effectively getting the tenant to pay for a brand new kitchen and bathroom. c. That the property was freshly painted and carpeted at the beginning of the tenancy and was as the previous Adjudicator commented in a very tidy condition. d. 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. e. That the landlord has been successful in his insurance claim, and that if I awarded him the full amount sought, he would have been paid out twice for the same damage.
As the landlord has been successful in his claim then I award him the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4876844 — Property damage at 1 Regina Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4876844 — Property damage at 1 Regina Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What amount of compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What amount of compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions