What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4890923?

The tribunal order states: Megan Lee Crawford to pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $14,142.93

How much money was awarded in case 4890923?

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 4890923?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10792629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4890923?

The tribunal order states: Megan Lee Crawford to pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $14,142.93

How much money was awarded in case 4890923?

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 4890923?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10792629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Puriri Crescent, Hillcrest, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4890923 — Property damage

Order

Megan Lee Crawford to pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $14,142.93 immediately, calculated as follows: Description of the AwardAmount Recoverable rent arrears (after reduction)$10,886.67 Cleaning (Whole House)$463.28 Rubbish removal (Exterior)$289.58 Rubbish removal (Backyard and surrounding areas)$1,447.90 Compensation for damage (including repairs to walls, etc.)$1,035.06 Reimbursement of filing fee$20.44 Total$14,142.93

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 March 2024. The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy: $16,330.00. The record starts from 1 January 2024 and ends on 14 March 2024. The rent arrears were $15,760.00 on 1 January 2024.
The requirement for state housing providers, such as Kāinga Ora (formerly Housing New Zealand), to mitigate loss, is influenced by both general tenancy law and specific obligations due to their role as social housing providers.
Kāinga Ora, like all landlords, is bound by the provisions of the RTA. This includes the duty under section 49 to take reasonable steps to mitigate losses caused by a breach of the tenancy agreement (such as unpaid rent or damage to the property). For instance, if a tenant fails to pay rent, Kāinga Ora must take appropriate action to minimise the loss, such as terminating the tenancy under section 55 (when rent is more than 21 days in arrears) or re-letting the property.
Failing to act promptly might result in the Tribunal reducing the amount of rent arrears recoverable, as has occurred in various cases.
Kāinga Ora’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) must be considered alongside their mandate to provide housing services to vulnerable populations. Kāinga Ora, as a state housing provider, is expected to show a degree of social responsibility towards vulnerable tenants. This obligation can affect how they respond to breaches by tenants, such as allowing rent arrears to build up or not taking immediate steps to terminate tenancies. However, this social obligation does not absolve them of their responsibility to mitigate loss but provides a context to consider whether they have taken reasonable steps in fulfilling this responsibility.
In Housing New Zealand v Witika, the landlord allowed five months of rent arrears to accumulate before terminating the tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal initially reduced the amount of arrears recoverable on the grounds that Housing New Zealand had failed to mitigate its losses by allowing the arrears to build up for so long. The Tribunal applied a "standard practice" of limiting recoverable arrears to 6-8 weeks based on the failure to mitigate.
On appeal, Judge Kerr overturned the Tribunal’s decision. He found that Housing New Zealand had acted reasonably by allowing the tenant more time to pay arrears, given its role as a social housing provider. Judge Kerr emphasised that social housing providers may have different obligations due to their role in supporting vulnerable populations. Housing New Zealand was allowed to recover the full amount of rent arrears.
Kāinga Ora has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it took appropriate steps during this period to recover the arrears or mitigate further loss. What is more, it has not explained delays in in taking action to terminate the tenancy and address the increasing arrears means. Consequently, a reduction in the recoverable amount is appropriate, as demonstrated in the Witika and Huang decisions.
A one-third reduction is applied to the total arrears claimed for the period from 1 January 2024 to 25 March 2024. This results in a reduction of $5,443.33 from the total of $16,330.00.
The recoverable rent arrears are $10,886.67.

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 leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Cleaning (Whole House): The landlord has claimed $463.28 for cleaning the house, which was left in an unreasonable state. The photographs provided support this claim, showing the premises were not left reasonably clean.
Rubbish removal (Exterior): The landlord claims $289.58 for removing rubbish from the exterior of the property and a further $1,447.90 for rubbish removal from the backyard and surrounding areas. Photos confirm the presence of rubbish left by the tenant. Total: $1,737.48
These claims are proven, and the amounts are reasonable.

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.
I present the compensation (damage) claims below in table format. Damage EventRepair Undertaken Cost Claimed Location Hole in wall 1Patch wall 1$47.54Bedroom 1 Hole <=75mm diameter in door 2 Repair hole in door 2$99.06Bedroom 1 Holes in wall 1 and wall 4Patch wall 1 and wall 4$95.08Bedroom 2 Holes in wall 2Patch wall 2$95.08Bedroom 2 Plasterboard damage in wall 4 Replace plasterboard in wall 4 $50.52Bedroom 2 Plasterboard damage in wall 3 Replace plasterboard in wall 3 $50.52Bathroom 1 Plasterboard damage in wall 2 Replace plasterboard in wall 2 $63.15Living Room 1 Damaged drawer in kitchenReplace damaged drawer$246.80Kitchen 1 Damaged cabinet door in kitchen Replace cabinet door$155.02Kitchen 1 Plasterboard damage below window in wall 2 Replace plasterboard in wall 2 below window $63.15Bedroom 1 Wet plasterboard behind sink with mould Replace wet plasterboard behind sink $69.14Laundry 1 TOTAL$1,035.06
I have reviewed the Landlord’s photographs and descriptions of the damage, and I am satisfied the damage has occurred. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the Tenant has not disproved liability for damage. After adjusting for depreciation, the total amount for proven damage is $1,035.06.
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.
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee: $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890923 — Property damage at 8 Puriri Crescent, Hillcrest, Rotorua 3015

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890923 — Property damage at 8 Puriri Crescent, Hillcrest, Rotorua 3015

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?