What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4883862?

The tribunal order states: William John Wilson must pay Buildcorp Management Limited $3,619.07

How much money was awarded in case 4883862?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883862?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883862?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10908832-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4883862?

The tribunal order states: William John Wilson must pay Buildcorp Management Limited $3,619.07

How much money was awarded in case 4883862?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883862?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883862?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10908832-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 8B Schnapper Rock Road, Schnapper Rock, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4883862 — Tenancy dispute

Order

William John Wilson must pay Buildcorp Management Limited $3,619.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5523145-009) to Buildcorp Management Limited immediately.
The Tribunal’s order dated 2 October 2024 is amended to record the correct name of the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. The hearing continued in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent and internet arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The name of the landlord was recorded as Buildcorp WiFi Limited. When the landlord lodged the claim with the Tribunal he used his RealMe log in details which is registered under Buildcorp WiFi Ltd which caused the application to default to this company name. I have now corrected the landlord name and reissued the order.

How much is owed for rent and internet?

The tenancy ended on 23 May 2024. The landlord provided rent and internet records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this landlord’s rent ledger and internet expense ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these debts.
The claims are proven.

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 stated during the hearing that the tenant left the premises in an unacceptable state. The premises required professional cleaning and the landlord also had to arrange to have rubbish and personal belongings removed from the property.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographic evidence and payment receipts in support of the above claims.
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 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 landlord claims that the tenant damaged or removed the following items: sofa, bed valance (3) and a desk lamp and bulb.
The landlord provided entry and exit photographs of the sofa which was approximately 18 months old at the start of the tenancy. The exit photograph clearly shows damage to the sofa which was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord also provided entry and exit photographs in support of the claims relating to the bed valance and the desk lamp and bulb. I am satisfied that these items were removed by the tenant.
I have also sighted the expense claim receipts in support of these claims.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 sofa at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan according to the IRD depreciation schedule. The landlord stated during the hearing that the sofa was approximately 18 months old. Accordingly, I have applied a depreciation amount of 15%.
The landlord also claimed the following: a. Toilet door and heated towel rail damage. The landlord says that the tenant damaged the toilet door frame, privacy set and towel rail. The builder also had to replace the towel rail. The landlord provided an invoice dated 30 January 2024 confirming that the tenant never paid the bill. The landlord did not provide a copy of the damaged toilet door with their application. During the hearing the landlord stated that evidence of the toilet door damage was on his computer. The landlord did not file entry inspection evidence of the toilet door. b. External light bollard: The landlord says that the tenant damaged an external light bollard. No evidence was provided by landlord of the damage to this item. The damage claim is for $705.59. The only evidence filed in support of this claim was an invoice dated 26 September 2023. c. Claims for missing items at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says that the tenant damaged various parts of the premises which had to be repaired/replaced after the tenant moved out. d. Oil heaters and expense claims from The Warehouse for missing items.
The landlord only provided an inventory list in support of these claims. In my view, and in the absence of proper photographic evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven these claims on the balance of probabilities.
Accordingly, the claims in respect of damage to the toilet door, heated towel rail, external light bollard, missing items and oil heaters are dismissed.
Because Buildcorp Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883862 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 8B Schnapper Rock Road, Schnapper Rock,

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883862 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 8B Schnapper Rock Road, Schnapper Rock,

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and internet?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and internet?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management