What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923036?

The tribunal order states: Chance Thomas must pay JC Property Holdings Limited $3,685.84 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4923036?

Cleaning: $478.40 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $762.50 awarded to landlord; Trademe Listing Fee: $99.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923036?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10861095-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923036?

The tribunal order states: Chance Thomas must pay JC Property Holdings Limited $3,685.84 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4923036?

Cleaning: $478.40 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $762.50 awarded to landlord; Trademe Listing Fee: $99.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923036?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10861095-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70A Hellyers Street, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4923036 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923036 — net $3,685.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent compensation as at 8 June 2024	$2,175.00	Rent compensation as at 8 June 2024
Repairs	$762.50	Repairs
Lawns and gardens	$150.00	Lawns and gardens
Cleaning	$478.40	Cleaning
Trademe listing fee	$99.50	Trademe listing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,685.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,685.84

Order

Chance Thomas must pay JC Property Holdings Limited $3,685.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent compensation as at 8 June 2024$2,175.00 Repairs$762.50 Lawns and gardens$150.00 Cleaning$478.40 Trademe listing fee$99.50 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,685.84

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
The tenant did not appear at the hearing, however I note that he did not attend a prior hearing either. I have no reason to believe the tenant has not been served notice of the hearing, so I will proceed to consider the landlord’s claims in his absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as JC Property Holdings Limited and the sole tenant as Chance Thomas. The tenancy commenced on 26 January 2024 as a fixed-term tenancy to end on 31 January 2025.
The tenancy was ended by way of order of the Tribunal because of rent arrears. That order is dated 8 May 2024 under application 484432. The landlord needed to enforce the termination, and the tenant was evicted on 10 May 2024. It is the case that the earlier order, ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,954.30 after the bond release, comprising rent arrears to 9 May 2024, water rates, electricity costs, and the filing fee.
The landlord then advertised and re-rented the premises. The landlord now weeks the wash-up costs in relation to that process.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

I will now address the landlords current claims: Rent loss
The landlord received possession of the premises on 10 May 2024, and is seeking rent up until 8 June when the new tenancy started. The landlord seeks lost rent of $2,175.00.
This claim is established. Because this was a fixed term tenancy, the tenant is liable for rent until the earlier of either the end of the fixed-term period, or when the next tenancy commenced. This claim is established in full. Handyman cost
The landlord seeks handyman charges for the following work: a. Repair of a damaged letter box. b. Replacement of a fence outside the premises that the tenant removed. c. Replacement of window latches, which the tenant removed inside the tenancy (with half missing). d. Rehanging of shower sliding door. e. Replacement of window panel. f. Reinstatement of clothesline which had been removed from in ground.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four 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 when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In the case of the claimed damage, with one exception I am satisfied that the landlord has established damage that arose during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear (maintenance). The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
However I consider the landlord has not proven that the work to reinstall the shower door was more than maintenance. The landlord was not sure what had caused the issue to the shower door for which the work was needed. The landlord accepted that this claim was not established, and requested that $100.00 be removed from the handyman charges, the total invoice being $862.50. The invoice is not itemised, but reducing the total charge by $100.00 seems fair.
The result is that tenant is ordered to pay $762.50 for repairs to the tenancy. Lawn work
The landlord seeks costs for attending to the lawns. The landlord states that during the tenancy the tenant did not mow the lawns, and there were a large numbers of cigarette butts that needed to be picked up.
Tenants are responsible for keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and that includes lawns and gardens. I accept that the tenant did not do that, so the tenant must be liable for the cost to address the lawns and gardens being a charge of $150.00. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord states that the premises were unclean following the tenant’s eviction. Rubbish was left including mattresses and food that needed to be disposed of.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I accept the evidence of the landlord in relation to the state the premises were returned following the eviction, and therefore order the tenant to pay the cleaning cost of $478.40. Enforcement filing fee
The landlord has claimed the $200.00 enforcement fee. As I explained to the landlord, normally when there is a money order to be enforced, as there is from the first order of the Tribunal, the enforcement office will add the enforcement fee ($200.00) to the amount they recover, and I presume that is the case here. Because of that I will not order that the tenant pay that sum in this order, because if I do I risk a double order for the same amount. However if my assumption was wrong, and the enforcement office has not added this fee, then the landlord may contact the Tribunal and I will issue an updated order then. Trademe listing fee
The landlord has claimed the Trademe listing fee of $199.00.
Because this was a fixed term tenancy that has been broken given a breach on the part of the tenant, the tenant must contribute toward the readvertising costs. Very broadly the landlord has needed to readvertise the tenancy during half of the tenancy term, so it is fair that the tenant pay half of the advertising cost. I therefore order the tenant to pay $99.50. Filing fee
The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4923036 — net $3,685.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent compensation as at 8 June 2024	$2,175.00	Rent compensation as at 8 June 2024
Repairs	$762.50	Repairs
Lawns and gardens	$150.00	Lawns and gardens
Cleaning	$478.40	Cleaning
Trademe listing fee	$99.50	Trademe listing fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,685.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,685.84

Order

Chance Thomas must pay JC Property Holdings Limited $3,685.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent compensation as at 8 June 2024$2,175.00 Repairs$762.50 Lawns and gardens$150.00 Cleaning$478.40 Trademe listing fee$99.50 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,685.84

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord.
The tenant did not appear at the hearing, however I note that he did not attend a prior hearing either. I have no reason to believe the tenant has not been served notice of the hearing, so I will proceed to consider the landlord’s claims in his absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as JC Property Holdings Limited and the sole tenant as Chance Thomas. The tenancy commenced on 26 January 2024 as a fixed-term tenancy to end on 31 January 2025.
The tenancy was ended by way of order of the Tribunal because of rent arrears. That order is dated 8 May 2024 under application 484432. The landlord needed to enforce the termination, and the tenant was evicted on 10 May 2024. It is the case that the earlier order, ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $3,954.30 after the bond release, comprising rent arrears to 9 May 2024, water rates, electricity costs, and the filing fee.
The landlord then advertised and re-rented the premises. The landlord now weeks the wash-up costs in relation to that process.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

I will now address the landlords current claims: Rent loss
The landlord received possession of the premises on 10 May 2024, and is seeking rent up until 8 June when the new tenancy started. The landlord seeks lost rent of $2,175.00.
This claim is established. Because this was a fixed term tenancy, the tenant is liable for rent until the earlier of either the end of the fixed-term period, or when the next tenancy commenced. This claim is established in full. Handyman cost
The landlord seeks handyman charges for the following work: a. Repair of a damaged letter box. b. Replacement of a fence outside the premises that the tenant removed. c. Replacement of window latches, which the tenant removed inside the tenancy (with half missing). d. Rehanging of shower sliding door. e. Replacement of window panel. f. Reinstatement of clothesline which had been removed from in ground.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four 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 when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In the case of the claimed damage, with one exception I am satisfied that the landlord has established damage that arose during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear (maintenance). The tenant has not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
However I consider the landlord has not proven that the work to reinstall the shower door was more than maintenance. The landlord was not sure what had caused the issue to the shower door for which the work was needed. The landlord accepted that this claim was not established, and requested that $100.00 be removed from the handyman charges, the total invoice being $862.50. The invoice is not itemised, but reducing the total charge by $100.00 seems fair.
The result is that tenant is ordered to pay $762.50 for repairs to the tenancy. Lawn work
The landlord seeks costs for attending to the lawns. The landlord states that during the tenancy the tenant did not mow the lawns, and there were a large numbers of cigarette butts that needed to be picked up.
Tenants are responsible for keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and that includes lawns and gardens. I accept that the tenant did not do that, so the tenant must be liable for the cost to address the lawns and gardens being a charge of $150.00. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord states that the premises were unclean following the tenant’s eviction. Rubbish was left including mattresses and food that needed to be disposed of.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I accept the evidence of the landlord in relation to the state the premises were returned following the eviction, and therefore order the tenant to pay the cleaning cost of $478.40. Enforcement filing fee
The landlord has claimed the $200.00 enforcement fee. As I explained to the landlord, normally when there is a money order to be enforced, as there is from the first order of the Tribunal, the enforcement office will add the enforcement fee ($200.00) to the amount they recover, and I presume that is the case here. Because of that I will not order that the tenant pay that sum in this order, because if I do I risk a double order for the same amount. However if my assumption was wrong, and the enforcement office has not added this fee, then the landlord may contact the Tribunal and I will issue an updated order then. Trademe listing fee
The landlord has claimed the Trademe listing fee of $199.00.
Because this was a fixed term tenancy that has been broken given a breach on the part of the tenant, the tenant must contribute toward the readvertising costs. Very broadly the landlord has needed to readvertise the tenancy during half of the tenancy term, so it is fair that the tenant pay half of the advertising cost. I therefore order the tenant to pay $99.50. Filing fee
The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923036 — Property damage at 70A Hellyers Street, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923036 — Property damage at 70A Hellyers Street, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions