What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4929153?

The tribunal order states: Tayla Prisk must pay Team Manawatu Rentals Limited $1,809.37 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4929153?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shed: $1,078.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $84.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929153?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10738347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4929153?

The tribunal order states: Tayla Prisk must pay Team Manawatu Rentals Limited $1,809.37 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4929153?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $2,750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shed: $1,078.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $84.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929153?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10738347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Willhart Court, Feilding 4702 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4929153 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929153 — net $1,809.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Replace smoke alarms	$84.37	Replace smoke alarms
Replace furnishings: carpet	$2,750.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: shed	$1,078.00	Replace furnishings: shed
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,809.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,809.37

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The application was in relation to cleaning, smoke alarms, carpet and garden shed.

At the hearing some other claims were brought. I did not deal with them as they were not included in the original application. It is possible that the tenant did not attend today’s hearing because she did not dispute the items in the application. She may dispute the new ones. The landlord may bring a new application for those. It would be helpful if the landlord had information of the age of the items claimed.

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

The landlord claimed $299.00 for cleaning.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Based on the photographs provided, the premises appeared reasonably clean and tidy. The property managers explained that every surface was sticky.

The tenants are not required to leave the premises in an immaculate, sterile state. The landlord should expect to undertake some cleaning in between occupants, but the surfaces should not be sticky. I have allowed $150.00 as reasonable compensation for wiping down all surfaces.

The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs showing that the smoke alarms had been removed during the tenancy. The replacement cost was $84.37.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks reimbursement of $2,750 for 5 insurance excesses of $550 each that had been paid for replacement carpet.

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. The weekly rent was $570, making a total of $2,280.

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 photographs of the carpet at the start and end of the tenancy. The carpet was in good conditions at the start. At the end of the tenancy, the carpet is filthy. There were extensive stains and marks of various colours and sizes. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I am also satisfied that the extent of the damage is more than careless. The tenant has allowed a situation to continue, knowing that damage was a certainty.

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.

The total replacement cost of the carpet was $6,262.44. The landlords did not know the age of the carpet, but I am satisfied that it was in good condition before the tenancy and the owner would not have been expecting to replace it for some time. The excess of $2750 is reasonable.

The landlord also seeks reimbursement of the replacement of a tin garden shed. The door had been broken and there was some buckling of a wall. They had not been able to replace the door and had to buy a new shed. I accept that these types of sheds are often sold in a kitset form and buying a replacement sliding door for such a shed would be difficult.

The landlord did not know how old the shed was, but it is evident it was in good condition at the start of the tenancy. The full replacement cost is ordered.

Because Team Manawatu Rentals Limited As Agent For N Dalby & A Trethewey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929153 — net $1,809.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Replace smoke alarms	$84.37	Replace smoke alarms
Replace furnishings: carpet	$2,750.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: shed	$1,078.00	Replace furnishings: shed
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,809.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,809.37

Order

Tayla Prisk must pay Team Manawatu Rentals Limited $1,809.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (6480891-005) to Team Manawatu Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application was in relation to cleaning, smoke alarms, carpet and garden shed.
At the hearing some other claims were brought. I did not deal with them as they were not included in the original application. It is possible that the tenant did not attend today’s hearing because she did not dispute the items in the application. She may dispute the new ones. The landlord may bring a new application for those. It would be helpful if the landlord had information of the age of the items claimed.

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

The landlord claimed $299.00 for cleaning.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Based on the photographs provided, the premises appeared reasonably clean and tidy. The property managers explained that every surface was sticky.
The tenants are not required to leave the premises in an immaculate, sterile state. The landlord should expect to undertake some cleaning in between occupants, but the surfaces should not be sticky. I have allowed $150.00 as reasonable compensation for wiping down all surfaces.
The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs showing that the smoke alarms had been removed during the tenancy. The replacement cost was $84.37.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks reimbursement of $2,750 for 5 insurance excesses of $550 each that had been paid for replacement carpet.
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. The weekly rent was $570, making a total of $2,280.
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 photographs of the carpet at the start and end of the tenancy. The carpet was in good conditions at the start. At the end of the tenancy, the carpet is filthy. There were extensive stains and marks of various colours and sizes. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I am also satisfied that the extent of the damage is more than careless. The tenant has allowed a situation to continue, knowing that damage was a certainty.
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.
The total replacement cost of the carpet was $6,262.44. The landlords did not know the age of the carpet, but I am satisfied that it was in good condition before the tenancy and the owner would not have been expecting to replace it for some time. The excess of $2750 is reasonable.
The landlord also seeks reimbursement of the replacement of a tin garden shed. The door had been broken and there was some buckling of a wall. They had not been able to replace the door and had to buy a new shed. I accept that these types of sheds are often sold in a kitset form and buying a replacement sliding door for such a shed would be difficult.
The landlord did not know how old the shed was, but it is evident it was in good condition at the start of the tenancy. The full replacement cost is ordered.
Because Team Manawatu Rentals Limited As Agent For N Dalby & A Trethewey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929153 — Cleanliness at 6 Willhart Court, Feilding 4702

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929153 — Cleanliness at 6 Willhart Court, Feilding 4702

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