What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894060?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services to pay the full bond to Eves Realty Limited immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4894060?

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 4894060?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10691465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894060?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services to pay the full bond to Eves Realty Limited immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4894060?

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 4894060?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10691465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Baxter Place, Owhata, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894060 — Property damage

Order

Bond Services to pay the full bond to Eves Realty Limited immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5222592-002) to Wayne Graeme Corlett and Marie Juliette Scheffer immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent Arrears to 2 April 2024$314.29 Rubbish Removal$249.83 Interior Cleaning$850.00 Insurance Excess (x4) – Carpet$1,200.00 Application filing Fee$20.44 Total award$2,634.56 Less Bond$2,400.00 Tenant to Pay$234.56

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 April 2024. The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy: $314.29

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
The Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord’s evidence supports its compensation claim and is unchallenged. I award $249.83 for rubbish removal.
The Landlord cleaned the premises at a cost of $1,020.35. The photographs of the blinds and the sheer amount of fly poo on them and stains on the carpet from animal excrement and urine were an indication of the state of the premises as a whole at the end of the tenancy. I considered two hours to clean the lounge ceiling to be more than what was required and using that as a general measure of the time which would have been required to restore the tenancy to a reasonably clean and tidy state, I approve $850.00 for cleaning.
The Landlord also claimed accommodation costs of approximately $500.00 as they were travelling some distance to get to the rental premises. While I am sympathetic to the Landlord considering the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I view accommodation as an incidental cost of being in business, and not a reasonable and actual loss connected to the Tenant’s breach. A similar clean could have been undertaken at the premises, for much the same price, by a suitably qualified local cleaner. I decline this compensation claim.

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 say at the outset, given the age and condition of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy, I consider the Landlord is already doing quite fortunate to have the wallpaper replaced by its insurer. I consider its realisable and depreciable life spent, and do not award any compensation of the insurance excess for wallpaper replacement.
The carpet, on the other hand, while not new and showing signs of stain, was in reasonably good condition at the start of the tenancy, thought it will have surpassed its depreciable life for IRD’s purposes (8 years). I award $300 per each access excess claims, over the four damage event areas, totalling $1,200.00.
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.

Order

Bond Services to pay the full bond to Eves Realty Limited immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5222592-002) to Wayne Graeme Corlett and Marie Juliette Scheffer immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent Arrears to 2 April 2024$314.29 Rubbish Removal$249.83 Interior Cleaning$850.00 Insurance Excess (x4) – Carpet$1,200.00 Application filing Fee$20.44 Total award$2,634.56 Less Bond$2,400.00 Tenant to Pay$234.56

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 April 2024. The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy: $314.29

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
The Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord’s evidence supports its compensation claim and is unchallenged. I award $249.83 for rubbish removal.
The Landlord cleaned the premises at a cost of $1,020.35. The photographs of the blinds and the sheer amount of fly poo on them and stains on the carpet from animal excrement and urine were an indication of the state of the premises as a whole at the end of the tenancy. I considered two hours to clean the lounge ceiling to be more than what was required and using that as a general measure of the time which would have been required to restore the tenancy to a reasonably clean and tidy state, I approve $850.00 for cleaning.
The Landlord also claimed accommodation costs of approximately $500.00 as they were travelling some distance to get to the rental premises. While I am sympathetic to the Landlord considering the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I view accommodation as an incidental cost of being in business, and not a reasonable and actual loss connected to the Tenant’s breach. A similar clean could have been undertaken at the premises, for much the same price, by a suitably qualified local cleaner. I decline this compensation claim.

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 say at the outset, given the age and condition of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy, I consider the Landlord is already doing quite fortunate to have the wallpaper replaced by its insurer. I consider its realisable and depreciable life spent, and do not award any compensation of the insurance excess for wallpaper replacement.
The carpet, on the other hand, while not new and showing signs of stain, was in reasonably good condition at the start of the tenancy, thought it will have surpassed its depreciable life for IRD’s purposes (8 years). I award $300 per each access excess claims, over the four damage event areas, totalling $1,200.00.
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894060 — Property damage at 14 Baxter Place, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894060 — Property damage at 14 Baxter Place, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

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?

Property management

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?

Property management