How much money was awarded in case 4899672?

Cleaning: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10545698-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4899672?

Cleaning: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899672?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10545698-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Cambridge Street, Gonville, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4899672 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4899672?

The tribunal order states: Tapita Rowe must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Trever & Emelita

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899672 — net $1,164.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$199.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$215.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$40.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: holes in walls	$690.00	Repairs: holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,164.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,164.44

Tapita Rowe must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Trever & Emelita Mael $1,164.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$199.00 Cleaning$215.00 Light bulbs/batteries$40.00 Repairs: holes in walls$690.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,164.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,164.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 28 May 2024 which was more than two months after the end of the tenancy.

The tenant contacted the Tribunal two days before the hearing and asked to have the hearing adjourned because she needed to collect children from school. Based on this contact from the tenant, I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing and the landlord’s application.

The hearing was therefore delayed by fifteen minutes so that the tenant could attend having collected her children from school. The hearing started at 3.20 pm and the tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation, 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord provided photographic evidence that while the tenant had cleaned the majority of the property, there were some areas that still required attention: scribbling on some walls, dusting in the sunroom and the cleaning of a glass cabinet. It is appropriate that the landlord be reimbursed for this work.

The tenant had a dog at the property during the tenancy with the consent of the landlord. The landlord and the property inspection report confirmed a dog smell at the end of the tenancy. It is appropriate for reasons of hygiene that the carpets were professionally cleaned at the tenant’s expense.

The landlord had to replace light bulbs and the amount claimed for their replacement is appropriate.

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 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 provided photographic evidence that there were three holes in three walls which required professional plastering and painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage was careless and is less than the limits referred to above.

The amount ordered is proven.

Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Trever & Emelita Mael has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899672 — net $1,164.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$199.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$215.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$40.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: holes in walls	$690.00	Repairs: holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,164.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,164.44

Order

Tapita Rowe must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Trever & Emelita Mael $1,164.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$199.00 Cleaning$215.00 Light bulbs/batteries$40.00 Repairs: holes in walls$690.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,164.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,164.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 28 May 2024 which was more than two months after the end of the tenancy.
The tenant contacted the Tribunal two days before the hearing and asked to have the hearing adjourned because she needed to collect children from school. Based on this contact from the tenant, I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing and the landlord’s application.
The hearing was therefore delayed by fifteen minutes so that the tenant could attend having collected her children from school. The hearing started at 3.20 pm and the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that while the tenant had cleaned the majority of the property, there were some areas that still required attention: scribbling on some walls, dusting in the sunroom and the cleaning of a glass cabinet. It is appropriate that the landlord be reimbursed for this work.
The tenant had a dog at the property during the tenancy with the consent of the landlord. The landlord and the property inspection report confirmed a dog smell at the end of the tenancy. It is appropriate for reasons of hygiene that the carpets were professionally cleaned at the tenant’s expense.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and the amount claimed for their replacement is appropriate.
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 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 provided photographic evidence that there were three holes in three walls which required professional plastering and painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage was careless and is less than the limits referred to above.
The amount ordered is proven.
Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Trever & Emelita Mael has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899672 — Property damage at 2 Cambridge Street, Gonville, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899672 — Property damage at 2 Cambridge Street, Gonville, Whanganui 4501

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions