What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4900014?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited -

How much money was awarded in case 4900014?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $2,767.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $550.30 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $14,337.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900014?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971978-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4900014?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited -

How much money was awarded in case 4900014?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $2,767.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $550.30 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $14,337.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900014?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10971978-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38A Willis Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900014 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900014 — net $18,081.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$70.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$437.00	Cleaning
Repairs to 2 door handles	$218.50	Repairs to 2 door handles
Replace carpet	$2,767.25	Replace carpet
Repairs to walls and doors	$14,337.50	Repairs to walls and doors
Replace curtains	$550.30	Replace curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,081.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,081.43

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited - as Agent for Shayron Beadle $18,081.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 October 2024.
The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim totalled $27,055.91 before deduction of the bond.
In a separate order I have directed the Bond Centre to refund the remaining bond of $2,819.56 to the landlord. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy from 19 April 2022, initially at a weekly rent of $710.00. The purpose of the tenancy was to enable the tenant, a social housing provider, to grant residential tenancies to sub-tenants. The parties expressly contracted back into the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The Tribunal granted possession to the landlord on 10 April 2024, following the issue of a 90-day termination notice for renovation/repairs.
The premises were left in a poor condition by the sub-tenants. The tenant said that they would have remediated the premises if they had been able to, but the Tribunal’s order prevented them from doing so.
The tenant did not dispute the claims for rubbish removal, lawn mowing, cleaning costs, and replacement door handles.
The tenant disputed the claims for painting, carpet replacement, replacement window hinges, and exterior graffiti removal. Damage
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, 41, and 49B of the Act).
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $760.00. The insurance excess was $2,000.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The premises were badly damaged at the end of the tenancy. There were multiple holes and damage to the walls in most rooms and drawings on the walls. The carpet was very soiled. It is possible to identify some minor wear and tear to carpets and walls in the ingoing inspection report. However, the premises, built in 2010, were clearly in a far worse condition at the end of the 2- year tenancy than at the start. In fact, the condition of the property deteriorated quickly. In an email dated 6 October 2022 the landlord described the premises as being in “a shocking state”. The exit inspection report on 10 April 2024 described the condition of the house as “revolting”.
The tenant accepted that the curtains needed replacing but questioned whether depreciation had been applied. On the basis that the curtains were 2 years old at the end of the tenancy (the landlord said they were brand new) and would have had a useful economic life of about 10 years, I award 80% of the amount claimed ($687.87 x 0.8).
The tenant opposed the cost of replacement window hinges because the damaged windows were not shown in the exit inspection report. The relevant suppliers’ invoice refers to the replacement of hinges on 2 windows in the sum of $380.00 plus GST. While the invoice is some evidence of the need for repairs, descriptions in invoices are not always accurate. The tenant pointed out that the quote the landlord originally obtained was for a replacement window handle. I find, in the absence of photographs or mention of window repairs in the inspection reports, that this claim has not been proved.
The tenant opposed the painting cost on the basis that the claim was for more than 4 weeks’ rent pursuant to section 49B(3) of the Act. The tenant also questioned the basis on which insurers had held that the damage was intentional, and therefore not covered under the insurance policy. The nature and extent of the damage is such that it can be readily inferred that some of it was intentional. However, based on the information provided by the insurance company, it does not seem that insurers treated the wall damage as intentional for the purposes of cover.
In my view, section 49B of the Act is designed to ensure that landlords can recover their uninsured loss for carelessly caused damage. The application of the excess varies from policy to policy. Some insurers apply it on a room-by- room basis, and others wall-by-wall. I do not accept that section 49B limits the landlord’s recovery to 4 weeks’ rent where the damage is insured, but the individual excess is applied multiple times. The excess has been applied on a room-by-room basis, leaving an uninsured loss of $14,337.50 for painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have considered whether to depreciate the cost of repair to the walls, which totalled $18,490.00. The walls were 14 years old at the end of the tenancy, and therefore close to or at the end of their economic life, but not their useful life. The walls would not have required new plasterboard and painting, were it not for the breach, and would have been perfectly acceptable for years into the future. The landlord has been burdened with significant premature costs. I decline to discount the award for depreciation.
The tenant opposed the carpet replacement cost. The tenant submitted that the landlord should have attempted to professionally clean the carpet first. However, I accept the landlord’s submission that the carpet was so badly soiled that it needed replacement. The landlord noted that the sub-tenants had dogs, without permission, and although it is unknown how many dogs lived in the premises or for how long, it helps to explain the condition of the carpet.
Insurers applied the excess based on a quote for replacement carpet of $7,107.00 (dated 7 May 2024). The uninsured loss on this basis was calculated as $5,674.25 after apportionment per room and insurers paid $1,432.75. The landlord subsequently obtained a lower quote, for $4,200.00 (dated 10 August 2024) and this was the amount claimed.
The carpet required replacement in the lounge, stairway, hallway, and 4 bedrooms. If the tenant’s liability for damage in each room is limited to the excess of $2,000.00 then, in theory, the landlord would be entitled to claim replacement carpet costs up to a maximum $14,000.00. The cost per room has not been calculated for the lower quote. When the actual replacement cost is divided per-room in the same proportions used by insurers, the amount claimed closely approximates to the landlord’s uninsured loss (+/- $16.00 by my calculation). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have considered whether to depreciate the carpet, which was installed in 2010. The amount claimed for carpet is low in comparison to the two other quotes obtained (for $6,698.75 and $7,107.00). While the carpet may have been close to the end of its economic life, it was shown in good condition in the entry inspection report dated 19 April 2022. The carpet was useable and still had value in a practical sense. I decline to discount the award further for depreciation.
The award for carpet is the replacement cost of $4,200.00 less $1,432.75 paid by insurers ($2,767.25).
The tenant opposed the cost of cleaning graffiti on the exterior of the property. The photographs relied on by the landlord do not appear to show graffiti but rather some kind of technical drawing in blue paint. I decline to award the cost of cleaning because I am not satisfied the drawing was done by the sub- tenants. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and therefore is not entitled to suppression (section 95A).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900014 — net $18,081.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$70.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$437.00	Cleaning
Repairs to 2 door handles	$218.50	Repairs to 2 door handles
Replace carpet	$2,767.25	Replace carpet
Repairs to walls and doors	$14,337.50	Repairs to walls and doors
Replace curtains	$550.30	Replace curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,081.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,081.43

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Hoverd & Co Property Management Limited - as Agent for Shayron Beadle $18,081.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 October 2024.
The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim totalled $27,055.91 before deduction of the bond.
In a separate order I have directed the Bond Centre to refund the remaining bond of $2,819.56 to the landlord. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy from 19 April 2022, initially at a weekly rent of $710.00. The purpose of the tenancy was to enable the tenant, a social housing provider, to grant residential tenancies to sub-tenants. The parties expressly contracted back into the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The Tribunal granted possession to the landlord on 10 April 2024, following the issue of a 90-day termination notice for renovation/repairs.
The premises were left in a poor condition by the sub-tenants. The tenant said that they would have remediated the premises if they had been able to, but the Tribunal’s order prevented them from doing so.
The tenant did not dispute the claims for rubbish removal, lawn mowing, cleaning costs, and replacement door handles.
The tenant disputed the claims for painting, carpet replacement, replacement window hinges, and exterior graffiti removal. Damage
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, 41, and 49B of the Act).
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $760.00. The insurance excess was $2,000.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The premises were badly damaged at the end of the tenancy. There were multiple holes and damage to the walls in most rooms and drawings on the walls. The carpet was very soiled. It is possible to identify some minor wear and tear to carpets and walls in the ingoing inspection report. However, the premises, built in 2010, were clearly in a far worse condition at the end of the 2- year tenancy than at the start. In fact, the condition of the property deteriorated quickly. In an email dated 6 October 2022 the landlord described the premises as being in “a shocking state”. The exit inspection report on 10 April 2024 described the condition of the house as “revolting”.
The tenant accepted that the curtains needed replacing but questioned whether depreciation had been applied. On the basis that the curtains were 2 years old at the end of the tenancy (the landlord said they were brand new) and would have had a useful economic life of about 10 years, I award 80% of the amount claimed ($687.87 x 0.8).
The tenant opposed the cost of replacement window hinges because the damaged windows were not shown in the exit inspection report. The relevant suppliers’ invoice refers to the replacement of hinges on 2 windows in the sum of $380.00 plus GST. While the invoice is some evidence of the need for repairs, descriptions in invoices are not always accurate. The tenant pointed out that the quote the landlord originally obtained was for a replacement window handle. I find, in the absence of photographs or mention of window repairs in the inspection reports, that this claim has not been proved.
The tenant opposed the painting cost on the basis that the claim was for more than 4 weeks’ rent pursuant to section 49B(3) of the Act. The tenant also questioned the basis on which insurers had held that the damage was intentional, and therefore not covered under the insurance policy. The nature and extent of the damage is such that it can be readily inferred that some of it was intentional. However, based on the information provided by the insurance company, it does not seem that insurers treated the wall damage as intentional for the purposes of cover.
In my view, section 49B of the Act is designed to ensure that landlords can recover their uninsured loss for carelessly caused damage. The application of the excess varies from policy to policy. Some insurers apply it on a room-by- room basis, and others wall-by-wall. I do not accept that section 49B limits the landlord’s recovery to 4 weeks’ rent where the damage is insured, but the individual excess is applied multiple times. The excess has been applied on a room-by-room basis, leaving an uninsured loss of $14,337.50 for painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have considered whether to depreciate the cost of repair to the walls, which totalled $18,490.00. The walls were 14 years old at the end of the tenancy, and therefore close to or at the end of their economic life, but not their useful life. The walls would not have required new plasterboard and painting, were it not for the breach, and would have been perfectly acceptable for years into the future. The landlord has been burdened with significant premature costs. I decline to discount the award for depreciation.
The tenant opposed the carpet replacement cost. The tenant submitted that the landlord should have attempted to professionally clean the carpet first. However, I accept the landlord’s submission that the carpet was so badly soiled that it needed replacement. The landlord noted that the sub-tenants had dogs, without permission, and although it is unknown how many dogs lived in the premises or for how long, it helps to explain the condition of the carpet.
Insurers applied the excess based on a quote for replacement carpet of $7,107.00 (dated 7 May 2024). The uninsured loss on this basis was calculated as $5,674.25 after apportionment per room and insurers paid $1,432.75. The landlord subsequently obtained a lower quote, for $4,200.00 (dated 10 August 2024) and this was the amount claimed.
The carpet required replacement in the lounge, stairway, hallway, and 4 bedrooms. If the tenant’s liability for damage in each room is limited to the excess of $2,000.00 then, in theory, the landlord would be entitled to claim replacement carpet costs up to a maximum $14,000.00. The cost per room has not been calculated for the lower quote. When the actual replacement cost is divided per-room in the same proportions used by insurers, the amount claimed closely approximates to the landlord’s uninsured loss (+/- $16.00 by my calculation). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have considered whether to depreciate the carpet, which was installed in 2010. The amount claimed for carpet is low in comparison to the two other quotes obtained (for $6,698.75 and $7,107.00). While the carpet may have been close to the end of its economic life, it was shown in good condition in the entry inspection report dated 19 April 2022. The carpet was useable and still had value in a practical sense. I decline to discount the award further for depreciation.
The award for carpet is the replacement cost of $4,200.00 less $1,432.75 paid by insurers ($2,767.25).
The tenant opposed the cost of cleaning graffiti on the exterior of the property. The photographs relied on by the landlord do not appear to show graffiti but rather some kind of technical drawing in blue paint. I decline to award the cost of cleaning because I am not satisfied the drawing was done by the sub- tenants. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and therefore is not entitled to suppression (section 95A).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900014 — Property damage at 38A Willis Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900014 — Property damage at 38A Willis Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions